People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ray

127 A.D.2d 859, 512 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43365

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 859 (People v. Ray) 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. Ray, 127 A.D.2d 859, 512 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), rendered August 25, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bauer, 113 AD2d 543). Further, although the arresting police officer should not have been allowed to testify that the complainant selected the defendant from a lineup, as such testimony constitutes impermissible bolstering (see, People v Williams, 109 AD2d 906, 907; People v Hall, 82 AD2d 838, 839), the issue has not been preserved for our review by an appropriate objection (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Merritt, 117 AD2d 629). Were we to reach the issue, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including clear and strong proof of the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, we would find that the error was harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969, 970; People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584, 585; cf., People v Grubbs, 112 AD2d 104).

We have considered the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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, Queens County (Zelman, J.), rendered August 25, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bauer, 113 AD2d 543). Further, although the arresting police officer should not have been allowed to testify that the complainant selected the defendant from a lineup, as such testimony constitutes impermissible bolstering (see, People v Williams, 109 AD2d 906, 907; People v Hall, 82 AD2d 838, 839), the issue has not been preserved for our review by an appropriate objection (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Merritt, 117 AD2d 629). Were we to reach the issue, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including clear and strong proof of the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator, we would find that the error was harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969, 970; People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584, 585; cf., People v Grubbs, 112 AD2d 104).

We have considered the remaining contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 859, 512 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ray-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack