Summary
In People v Lemanski (217 AD2d 962 [4th Dept 1995]), the Supreme Court held that there was no merit in defendant's contention that the County Court erred in admitting expert testimony in "Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome". The Court went on to hold (at 962) that such "testimony is admissible to show that a victim's conduct is consistent with that syndrome".
Summary of this case from People v. CoulterOpinion
July 14, 1995
Appeal from the Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of 13 counts of a 29-count indictment charging him with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of the minor daughter of his ex-wife. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by references to uncharged acts of misconduct. The evidence complained of was properly admitted in support of the child endangerment count of the indictment ( see, People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 421-422).
There is likewise no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in admitting expert testimony on child sexual abuse syndrome ( see, People v. Bennett, 79 N.Y.2d 464, 471; People v. DeLong, 206 A.D.2d 914, 915). Such testimony is admissible to show that a victim's conduct is consistent with that syndrome ( People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 285-288). Aiding the jurors to appreciate and understand matters beyond the knowledge of the average juror is the purpose of expert testimony.
Defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial by the court's evidentiary rulings. The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence in question was neither relevant nor admissible ( see, People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 U.S. 998; People v. Glogowski, 174 A.D.2d 1039, 1040, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 857).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.