People v. Pazmino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pazmino

179 A.D.2d 385, 578 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 123

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 385 (People v. Pazmino) 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. Pazmino, 179 A.D.2d 385, 578 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the mental defects of the complaining witness make the evidence of guilt legally insufficient. The testimony of the police officers and the disinterested employees of the restaurant where the complainant promptly reported the attack strongly corroborated her claim that she had been attacked. Her bleeding lip and swollen wrists confirm that she had been struck in the face and restrained. Defendant challenges the complainant’s reliability on the basis of expert testimony concerning her mental and physical condition, but these experts did not say that she suffered from a thought disorder or was susceptible to imagining sexual encounters with others. This is not a case for an appellate court to disturb the jury’s determination of a complainant’s credibility because of hopeless contradictions in her testimony (see, People v Rice, 123 AD2d 891, 892; People v Ledwon, 153 NY 10). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the mental defects of the complaining witness make the evidence of guilt legally insufficient. The testimony of the police officers and the disinterested employees of the restaurant where the complainant promptly reported the attack strongly corroborated her claim that she had been attacked. Her bleeding lip and swollen wrists confirm that she had been struck in the face and restrained. Defendant challenges the complainant’s reliability on the basis of expert testimony concerning her mental and physical condition, but these experts did not say that she suffered from a thought disorder or was susceptible to imagining sexual encounters with others. This is not a case for an appellate court to disturb the jury’s determination of a complainant’s credibility because of hopeless contradictions in her testimony (see, People v Rice, 123 AD2d 891, 892; People v Ledwon, 153 NY 10). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 385, 578 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pazmino-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack