From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 18, 1992
184 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 18, 1992

Appeal from the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.).


Defendant was convicted after trial of rape in the first degree, sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 8 1/3 to 25 years, and now appeals. The contentions advanced on appeal lack merit and do not warrant extended discussion. Initially, we reject the contention that County Court impermissibly denied defendant the right to cross-examine the infant victim concerning defendant's prior sexual contact with her. The specific question asked of the witness, "When was the first time that anyone bad touched you?" (emphasis supplied), was properly excluded as irrelevant to the issue of whether defendant engaged the victim in sexual intercourse on January 24, 1990 and was also barred by CPL 60.42 (1). County Court did permit questioning of the victim concerning her Grand Jury testimony as to the first time defendant engaged her in sexual contact.

Similarly meritless is the contention that defendant was denied due process by the presentence report's "unsubstantiated accusations" of defendant's prior sexual abuse of the victim. First, the allegations were based upon the victim's statement and the opinion of mental health professionals and, thus, were not unsubstantiated (see, People v. Tumerman, 133 A.D.2d 714, 716, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 938, 72 N.Y.2d 867, cert denied 485 U.S. 969). Second, defendant was given an opportunity to and did challenge the inclusion of the material in the presentence report (see, People v. Bonadie, 151 A.D.2d 686, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 845). Third, defendant has made no showing that the information was inaccurate (see, People v. La France, 171 A.D.2d 904; People v. Walworth, 167 A.D.2d 622, 623) or that County Court relied upon any prejudicial information to impose sentence (see, People v Walworth, supra). As a final matter, considering the nature of defendant's crime and its effect on the eight-year-old victim, the sentence was by no means excessive (see, supra).

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Levine and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 18, 1992
184 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON…

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

Date published: Jun 18, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 946

Citing Cases

People v. Rudduck

d in denying his motion to redact erroneous information contained in the presentence report (PSR). We reject…

People v. Paragallo

t failed to establish that such statements were not relevant to the question of sentence (see CPL 390.30…