People v. Oge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oge

287 A.D.2d 469, 730 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9246

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 469 (People v. Oge) 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. Oge, 287 A.D.2d 469, 730 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), rendered April 17, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the cumulative evidence presented at the Sirois hearing (see, Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 92 AD2d 405), and the inferences that logically flow therefrom were sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the defendant’s misconduct caused the complainant’s unavailability to testify at trial (see, People v Geraci, 85 NY2d 359, 370; cf., People v Hamilton, 70 NY2d 987). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly allowed the use of the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony as part of its direct case. Furthermore, the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony had sufficient indicia of reliability to permit its admission at the trial (see, People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68, 78; People v Tuzzio, 201 AD2d 595; People v Small, 177 AD2d 669).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Luciano, Smith and Crane, 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 (Silverman, J.), rendered April 17, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the cumulative evidence presented at the Sirois hearing (see, Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 92 AD2d 405), and the inferences that logically flow therefrom were sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the defendant’s misconduct caused the complainant’s unavailability to testify at trial (see, People v Geraci, 85 NY2d 359, 370; cf., People v Hamilton, 70 NY2d 987). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly allowed the use of the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony as part of its direct case. Furthermore, the complainant’s Grand Jury testimony had sufficient indicia of reliability to permit its admission at the trial (see, People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68, 78; People v Tuzzio, 201 AD2d 595; People v Small, 177 AD2d 669).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Luciano, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 469, 730 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oge-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack