From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Houk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1085 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 8, 1996

Appeal from the Genesee County Court, Morton, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting a prosecution witness to bolster the trial testimony of the infant complainant, whom defendant was found to have raped and sodomized. The witness testified that the complainant, her daughter, had typed a message on their home computer, which stated, "I have been sexualy [sic] abused." Defendant failed to object to the mother's testimony regarding the computer message, and, thus, the issue is unpreserved for appeal ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Smith, 219 A.D.2d 794, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 875), and we decline to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe ( see, CPL 470.15 [b]).


Summaries of

People v. Houk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1085 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Houk

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DEAN K. HOUK, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 1085 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 197

Citing Cases

People v. Yelle

The fact that the prior convictions of defendant arose from his violations of court orders is "relevant to…

People v. Brown

The relevant consideration is not which party caused the break in the questioning, rather it is whether there…