From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kemp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 1998
251 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 10, 1998

Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Rape, 1st Degree.

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant's motion for an order directing the three complainants to submit to psychological or psychiatric examinations ( see, People v. Earel, 89 N.Y.2d 960, 961). Further, "at least in the absence of any nonspeculative allegations of undue suggestion", defendant's motion for a pretrial hearing to determine whether the complainants had been subjected to suggestive questioning was also properly denied ( People v. Alvarez, 159 Misc.2d 963, 965; cf., People v. Michael M., 162 Misc.2d 803, 811). The record supports the court's determination that the period of postreadiness delay occasioned by DNA testing is excludable from the statutory period as an adjournment requested by defendant ( see, People v. White, 211 A.D.2d 982, 985, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 944). Defendant's remaining contention is not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).


Summaries of

People v. Kemp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 1998
251 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Kemp

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARZELL KEMP, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 525

Citing Cases

People v. Weber

permitted to exhaustively cross-examine this witness and to submit the testimony of a defense expert who…

People v. Thompson

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he was not entitled to a pretrial hearing concerning the…