People v. Robb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Robb

23 A.D.3d 1116, 803 N.Y.S.2d 485

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[1117]*1117Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered October 30, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sodomy in the second degree (three counts).

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 three counts of sodomy in the second degree (Penal Law former § 130.45). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly admitted the victim’s testimony relating to charges of sexual abuse against defendant that had been dismissed. That testimony “ ‘was inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime, it was necessary to comprehend that evidence . . . and its probative worth exceeded its prejudicial effect’ ” (People v Pepe, 259 AD2d 949, 950 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1024 [1999], quoting People v Stephens, 181 AD2d 996, 997 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 934 [1992]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Kehoe, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

[1117]*1117Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered October 30, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sodomy in the second degree (three counts).

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 three counts of sodomy in the second degree (Penal Law former § 130.45). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly admitted the victim’s testimony relating to charges of sexual abuse against defendant that had been dismissed. That testimony “ ‘was inextricably interwoven with the evidence of the charged crime, it was necessary to comprehend that evidence . . . and its probative worth exceeded its prejudicial effect’ ” (People v Pepe, 259 AD2d 949, 950 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1024 [1999], quoting People v Stephens, 181 AD2d 996, 997 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 934 [1992]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Kehoe, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

People v. Robb, 23 A.D.3d 1116, 803 N.Y.S.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

23 A.D.3d 1116 (People v. Robb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related