From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pegram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1993
191 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 29, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony as to the psychological and behavorial characteristics typically shared by children who are victims of sexual abuse in a familial setting (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112; People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410). Contrary to the contention of the defendant, there is no requirement that an expert witness must examine a victim and render an opinion that the victim suffers from the child abuse syndrome before offering testimony (see, People v. Aphaylath, 68 N.Y.2d 945; People v. Webb, 177 A.D.2d 524).

Nor did the trial court err in its Sandoval ruling which permitted the prosecutor to inquire as to the defendant's two prior convictions (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The ten-year-old convictions were not too remote in time to mandate their preclusion (People v. Salcedo, 133 A.D.2d 129; People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881). Further, the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the prejudice which would have resulted from the admission of his prior convictions outweighed their probative value on the assessment of his credibility (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, cert denied 423 U.S. 861).

Nor were counts 13 through 16 of the indictment defective pursuant to CPL 210.25. These counts provided the defendant with sufficient information regarding the nature of the charges and the conduct underlying the charges to allow him to prepare a defense (see, People v. Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589). Further, the two-month time interval set forth in these counts was not so excessive as to be unreasonable under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Watt, 81 N.Y.2d 772; People v. Vogt, 172 A.D.2d 864; People v. Barrett, 166 A.D.2d 657; People v. Corrado, 161 A.D.2d 658).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pegram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1993
191 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Pegram

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEVIN PEGRAM, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 29, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

People v. Pierre

05; People v Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725; People v Pride, 173 A.D.2d 651; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), and,…

People v. Peana

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by…