Opinion
951 KA 20-00710
11-13-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jordan R. PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
LINDSEY M. PIEPER, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CAROLINE A. WOJTASZEK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. JORDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LINDSEY M. PIEPER, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CAROLINE A. WOJTASZEK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. JORDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, TROUTMAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, rape in the second degree ( Penal Law § 130.30 [1] ). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court deprived him of his right to present a defense by limiting his cross-examination of a sexual assault nurse examiner and a forensic chemist. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in limiting the cross-examination of those witnesses, we conclude that defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense (see generally Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 [1973] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ) and according deference to the jury's credibility determinations (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006] ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Defendant failed to preserve his remaining contentions for our review, and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] ).