People v. Peckham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peckham

8 A.D.3d 1121, 778 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8194

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 1121 (People v. Peckham) 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. Peckham, 8 A.D.3d 1121, 778 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered September 25, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). The jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and thus the verdict convicting defendant of sexual abuse is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Pope [appeal No. 1], 6 AD3d 1128 [2004]; People v Jackson, 4 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]; see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495; cf. People v Wallace, 306 AD2d 802 [2003]). Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v West, 4 AD3d 791, 792 [2004]; see also People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Kidd, 265 AD2d 859 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 824 [1999]). County Court properly admitted the testimony of the victim’s grandfather under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule, and thus that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]; People v Kornowski, 178 AD2d 984 [1991], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]). Despite the victim’s delay of at least 15 days in revealing the abuse (see People v Rodriguez, 284 AD2d 952 [2001], lv [1122]*1122denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; Kornowski, 178 AD2d at 984-985), the evidence demonstrates that the complaint was “made ‘at the first suitable opportunity’ ” (McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 17). The testimony of the victim’s grandfather did not “contain unnecessary or impermissible details” (People v Rawlinson, 280 AD2d 943, 943 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 833 [2001]; see Rodriguez, 284 AD2d 952 [2001]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered September 25, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). The jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), and thus the verdict convicting defendant of sexual abuse is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Pope [appeal No. 1], 6 AD3d 1128 [2004]; People v Jackson, 4 AD3d 848, 849 [2004]; see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495; cf. People v Wallace, 306 AD2d 802 [2003]). Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v West, 4 AD3d 791, 792 [2004]; see also People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Kidd, 265 AD2d 859 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 824 [1999]). County Court properly admitted the testimony of the victim’s grandfather under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule, and thus that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]; People v Kornowski, 178 AD2d 984 [1991], lv denied 89 NY2d 1096 [1997]). Despite the victim’s delay of at least 15 days in revealing the abuse (see People v Rodriguez, 284 AD2d 952 [2001], lv [1122]*1122denied 96 NY2d 924 [2001]; Kornowski, 178 AD2d at 984-985), the evidence demonstrates that the complaint was “made ‘at the first suitable opportunity’ ” (McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 17). The testimony of the victim’s grandfather did not “contain unnecessary or impermissible details” (People v Rawlinson, 280 AD2d 943, 943 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 833 [2001]; see Rodriguez, 284 AD2d 952 [2001]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 1121, 778 N.Y.S.2d 629, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peckham-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack