From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gupton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2001
281 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 21, 2001.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Endangering Welfare Child.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant was convicted following a bench trial of two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10). Her sole contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred in admitting prior consistent statements of the infant victim ( see generally, People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 16; People v. McClean, 69 N.Y.2d 426, 428). Although defendant preserved that contention for our review by a timely objection, this was a bench trial, and the Trial Judge is presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching the verdict ( see, People v. Clinkscales, 277 A.D.2d 930 [decided Nov. 13, 2000]; People v. Limpert, 186 A.D.2d 1005, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 764; People v. Livingston, 184 A.D.2d 529, 530; People v. Mann, 172 A.D.2d 1010, 1010-1011, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 969). There is no basis in this record to conclude that the court did otherwise ( see, People v Clinkscales, supra; People v. Concepcion, 266 A.D.2d 227, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 917).


Summaries of

People v. Gupton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 21, 2001
281 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Gupton

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PRISCILLA…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
723 N.Y.S.2d 303

Citing Cases

People v. Pabon

There is no merit to defendant's contention that the court's refusal to “sequester” certain “evidence,” i.e.,…

People v. Pabon

There is no merit to defendant's contention that the court's refusal to "sequester" certain "evidence," i.e.,…