Opinion
2017–05482 Ind.No. 1910/16
04-16-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James LOVE, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David L. Goodwin of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
When making its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ), the Supreme Court appropriately balanced the probative value of the proposed inquiry to the issue of the defendant's credibility against the potential prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Betancourt , 106 A.D.3d 831, 831, 964 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; People v. Williams , 24 A.D.3d 882, 883, 806 N.Y.S.2d 266 ; People v. Levy , 290 A.D.2d 565, 736 N.Y.S.2d 618 ).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain testimony concerning the complainant's disclosure of sexual abuse to the police constituted improper bolstering (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Tucker , 117 A.D.3d 1090, 1090, 986 N.Y.S.2d 246 ; People v. Batista , 92 A.D.3d 793, 793, 938 N.Y.S.2d 479 ). In any event, the testimony did not exceed the allowable level of detail concerning the alleged incidents permitted under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule (see People v. McDaniel , 81 N.Y.2d 10, 18, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364, 611 N.E.2d 265 ; People v. Tucker , 117 A.D.3d 1090, 1090, 986 N.Y.S.2d 246 ; People v. Bernardez , 63 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 881 N.Y.S.2d 316 ). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the challenged testimony was relevant to explain the investigative process and to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v. Mehmood , 112 A.D.3d 850, 851, 977 N.Y.S.2d 78 ; People v. Ludwig , 104 A.D.3d 1162, 961 N.Y.S.2d 657 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to certain improper questioning by the prosecutor during the cross-examination of a defense witness is without merit.
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Honghirun , 29 N.Y.3d 284, 56 N.Y.S.3d 275, 78 N.E.3d 804 ; People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi , 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.