Opinion
2011-12-23
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph EDWARDS, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered November 9, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (William G. Pixley of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered November 9, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (William G. Pixley of Counsel), for defendant-appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[2] ) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ). 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), 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). Defendant's objection to the testimony of the victim's half-sister on the ground that it was speculative and irrelevant did not preserve for our review his present contentions that such testimony improperly bolstered the victim's credibility ( see People v. Valentine, 48 A.D.3d 1268, 1268–1269, 852 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv.denied 10 N.Y.3d 871, 860 N.Y.S.2d 498, 890 N.E.2d 261), and exceeded the scope of the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule ( see People v. Stearns, 72 A.D.3d 1214, 1218, 898 N.Y.S.2d 348, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.