People v. Shelton

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Shelton

808 N.E.2d 1268, 1 N.Y.3d 614, 777 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 194

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 808 N.E.2d 1268 (People v. Shelton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Shelton, 808 N.E.2d 1268, 1 N.Y.3d 614, 777 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 194 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court misapplied the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule when it permitted the complainant’s daughter to testify lacks merit. An outcry of rape is prompt if made “at the first suitable opportunity” (People v O’Sullivan, 104 NY 481, 486 [1887]) and “is a relative concept dependent on the facts” (People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 17 [1993]). In determining that the complaint here was prompt, the trial court properly considered that the rape occurred late at night, that defendant warned complainant not to tell anyone, and that defendant lived in the same apartment building as the 81-year-old complainant;

Defendant’s preserved objections to the prosecutor’s summation do not merit reversal of the conviction.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court misapplied the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule when it permitted the complainant’s daughter to testify lacks merit. An outcry of rape is prompt if made “at the first suitable opportunity” (People v O’Sullivan, 104 NY 481, 486 [1887]) and “is a relative concept dependent on the facts” (People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 17 [1993]). In determining that the complaint here was prompt, the trial court properly considered that the rape occurred late at night, that defendant warned complainant not to tell anyone, and that defendant lived in the same apartment building as the 81-year-old complainant;

Defendant’s preserved objections to the prosecutor’s summation do not merit reversal of the conviction.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 N.E.2d 1268, 1 N.Y.3d 614, 777 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shelton-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack