People v. McCrae

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCrae

64 A.D.3d 796, 882 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedJuly 28, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.3d 796 (People v. McCrae) 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. McCrae, 64 A.D.3d 796, 882 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J), rendered March 29, 2007, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

While the defendant correctly contends that the court erred in admitting certain testimony as “prompt outcry” evidence (People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16 [1993]), reversal is not warranted since the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]). Similarly, to the extent that the prosecutor made improper remarks during opening statements and summation, the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 242). Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Florio and Lott, 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 (J. Goldberg, J), rendered March 29, 2007, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

While the defendant correctly contends that the court erred in admitting certain testimony as “prompt outcry” evidence (People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16 [1993]), reversal is not warranted since the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]). Similarly, to the extent that the prosecutor made improper remarks during opening statements and summation, the error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 242). Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.3d 796, 882 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccrae-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack