People v. Barnes

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Troche

    159 A.D.3d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    n permitting the complainant's mother to testify with respect to the complainant's physical appearance immediately after the incident (seePeople v. Shepherd, 83 A.D.3d 1298, 1300, 921 N.Y.S.2d 666 ; People v. Terrence, 205 A.D.2d 301, 302, 612 N.Y.S.2d 571 ). In addition, the mother properly testified as to the prompt outcry made by the complainant at that time, and her testimony on that point did not exceed the level of detail permissible under the prompt outcry hearsay exception (seePeople v. Tucker, 117 A.D.3d 1090, 986 N.Y.S.2d 246 ; People v. Bernardez, 63 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 881 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; People v. Salazar, 234 A.D.2d 322, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1002 ). Furthermore, while the testimony of the mother as to the complainant's conversation with certain police officers was improper (see generallyPeople v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 17, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364, 611 N.E.2d 265 ), as was the testimony of another witness regarding his conversation with the complainant in the days following the incident (seePeople v. Barnes, 140 A.D.3d 443, 444, 33 N.Y.S.3d 234 ), these errors were harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and there was no significant probability that, absent the errors, the defendant would have been acquitted (seePeople v. Caban, 126 A.D.3d 808, 809, 6 N.Y.S.3d 73 ; People v. Tucker, 117 A.D.3d at 1091, 986 N.Y.S.2d 246 ). Additionally, the combined effect of all of the foregoing errors did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. We note that the defendant waived any objection to the testimony of the mother regarding the complainant's statement to the effect that she was sexually assaulted by gang members, since it was the defense that elicited such testimony (seePeople v. Honghirun, 133 A.D.3d 882, 883, 20 N.Y.S.3d 409, affd 29 N.Y.3d 284, 56 N.Y.S.3d 275, 78 N.E.3d 804 ).

  2. People v. Troche

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

    Moreover, the County Court did not err in permitting the complainant's mother to testify with respect to the complainant's physical appearance immediately after the incident (see People v Shepherd, 83 AD3d 1298, 1300; People v Terrence, 205 AD2d 301, 302). In addition, the mother properly testified as to the prompt outcry made by the complainant at that time, and her testimony on that point did not exceed the level of detail permissible under the prompt outcry hearsay exception (see People v Tucker, 117 AD3d 1090; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175; People v Salazar, 234 AD2d 322). Furthermore, while the testimony of the mother as to the complainant's conversation with certain police officers was improper (see generally People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 17), as was the testimony of another witness regarding his conversation with the complainant in the days following the incident (see People v Barnes, 140 AD3d 443, 444), these errors were harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and there was no significant probability that, absent the errors, the defendant would have been acquitted (see People v Caban, 126 AD3d 808, 809; People v Tucker, 117 AD3d at 1091). Additionally, the combined effect of all of the foregoing errors did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

  3. People v. Barnes

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 99052 (N.Y. 2016)

    Judge: Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 140 AD3d 443 (Bronx)

  4. People v. Rath

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1667 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    Contrary to defendant's contention, the aunt did not give impermissible details of the incident (see McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 17-18; People v Gross, 172 AD3d 741, 744 [2d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1105 [2019]; People v Garrow, 126 AD3d 1362, 1363 [4th Dept 2015]). The court also properly allowed a nurse to testify regarding statements made by the victim during the sexual assault examination inasmuch as the majority of those statements fell within the exception to the hearsay rule of statements relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment (see People v Barnes, 140 AD3d 443, 443 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 969 [2016]; People v Mirabella, 126 AD3d 1367, 1367 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied25 NY3d 1168 [2015]; see generally People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 617-618 [2010]). To the extent that some of the statements went beyond that exception, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because the error was harmless (see Ortega, 15 NY3d at 619-620).

  5. People v. Rath

    192 A.D.3d 1600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 8 times

    Contrary to defendant's contention, the aunt did not give impermissible details of the incident (seeMcDaniel , 81 N.Y.2d at 17-18, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364, 611 N.E.2d 265 ; People v. Gross , 172 A.D.3d 741, 744, 99 N.Y.S.3d 367 [2d Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1105, 106 N.Y.S.3d 692, 130 N.E.3d 1302 [2019] ; People v. Garrow , 126 A.D.3d 1362, 1363, 5 N.Y.S.3d 648 [4th Dept. 2015] ). The court also properly allowed a nurse to testify regarding statements made by the victim during the sexual assault examination inasmuch as the majority of those statements fell within the exception to the hearsay rule of statements relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment (seePeople v. Barnes , 140 A.D.3d 443, 443, 33 N.Y.S.3d 234 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 969, 43 N.Y.S.3d 256, 66 N.E.3d 2 [2016] ; People v. Mirabella , 126 A.D.3d 1367, 1367, 5 N.Y.S.3d 650 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1168, 15 N.Y.S.3d 300, 36 N.E.3d 103 [2015] ; see generallyPeople v. Ortega , 15 N.Y.3d 610, 617-618, 917 N.Y.S.2d 1, 942 N.E.2d 210 [2010] ). To the extent that some of the statements went beyond that exception, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because the error was harmless (seeOrtega , 15 N.Y.3d at 619-620, 917 N.Y.S.2d 1, 942 N.E.2d 210 ).

  6. People v. Stetin

    167 A.D.3d 1245 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 15 times

    In addition, we cannot conclude that defense counsel lacked a strategic reason or other legitimate explanation for stipulating to the admission of the victim's unredacted medical records into evidence. The People expressed an intention to otherwise introduce the records through the testimony of the victim's doctor, and County Court likely would have ruled that the statements that defendant now argues should have been redacted were relevant to the victim's diagnosis and treatment and, thus, admissible (seePeople v. Ortega, 15 N.Y.3d 610, 617–619, 917 N.Y.S.2d 1, 942 N.E.2d 210 [2010] ; People v. Barnes, 140 A.D.3d 443, 443, 33 N.Y.S.3d 234 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 969, 43 N.Y.S.3d 256, 66 N.E.3d 2 [2016] ). Further, despite defense counsel's failure to request an adverse inference charge regarding photographs that were lost or destroyed by the police (see generally People v. Wheeler, 124 A.D.3d 1136, 1139–1140, 2 N.Y.S.3d 663 [2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 993, 10 N.Y.S.3d 536, 32 N.E.3d 973 [2015] )