People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. James

282 A.D.2d 547, 722 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 547 (People v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. James, 282 A.D.2d 547, 722 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 21, 1997, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[548]*548Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there is no significant probability that he would have been acquitted but for the testimony of the complainant’s grandmother concerning the complainant’s demeanor when he saw the defendant two days after the incident. Any error in permitting that testimony was, therefore, harmless (see, People v Teixeira, 189 AD2d 838; People v Pyne, 125 AD2d 720; People v Grubbs, 112 AD2d 104).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 21, 1997, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[548]*548Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there is no significant probability that he would have been acquitted but for the testimony of the complainant’s grandmother concerning the complainant’s demeanor when he saw the defendant two days after the incident. Any error in permitting that testimony was, therefore, harmless (see, People v Teixeira, 189 AD2d 838; People v Pyne, 125 AD2d 720; People v Grubbs, 112 AD2d 104).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 547, 722 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-james-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack