People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanchez

69 A.D.3d 434, 891 N.Y.2d 277

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 434 (People v. Sanchez) 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. Sanchez, 69 A.D.3d 434, 891 N.Y.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of penetration was satisfied by the victim’s testimony that she felt defendant’s penis inside her vagina. The evidence that defendant claims to negate penetration is actually consistent with at least slight or partial penetration, which is all the law requires (see Penal Law § 130.00 [1]; People v Williams, 259 AD2d 509 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1007 [1999]).

The court’s refusal to read back cross-examination testimony impeaching certain direct testimony requested by the jury did not seriously prejudice defendant, and does not require reversal (see People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 966 [1989]). The brief cross-[435]*435examination at issue was cumulative to other information that the jury requested and received during deliberations.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of penetration was satisfied by the victim’s testimony that she felt defendant’s penis inside her vagina. The evidence that defendant claims to negate penetration is actually consistent with at least slight or partial penetration, which is all the law requires (see Penal Law § 130.00 [1]; People v Williams, 259 AD2d 509 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1007 [1999]).

The court’s refusal to read back cross-examination testimony impeaching certain direct testimony requested by the jury did not seriously prejudice defendant, and does not require reversal (see People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 966 [1989]). The brief cross-[435]*435examination at issue was cumulative to other information that the jury requested and received during deliberations.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 434, 891 N.Y.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanchez-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack