From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Loan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 23, 1992
179 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

In People v Van Loan (179 A.D.2d 885), defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, sodomy in the first degree and second degree based on sexual assault of a male child.

Summary of this case from People v. Yates

Opinion

January 23, 1992

Appeal from the County Court of Sullivan County (Hanofee, J.).


As a result of an incident that occurred on February 13, 1988 involving a 12-year-old child, defendant was indicted for the crimes of aggravated sexual abuse, sodomy in the first degree and sodomy in the second degree. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of all counts in the indictment and was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years for each of the first two counts of the indictment and 3 to 6 years for the third count. This appeal followed.

We affirm. Relying on People v. Taylor ( 75 N.Y.2d 277), defendant argues that County Court erred in permitting the testimony of Marion Dent, a child therapist, who testified that based on her experience with the victim as her patient, he did not exhibit any signs of sexual abuse prior to the incident with defendant but has since exhibited several signs of sexual abuse.

Initially we note that, by failing to object to that portion of Dent's testimony, defendant has waived review of the alleged error (see, CPL 470.05). We would, in any event, reject such argument. In People v. Taylor (supra), the Court of Appeals concluded that expert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome could be "offered to explain behavior that might appear unusual to a lay juror not ordinarily familiar with the patterns of response exhibited by rape victims" but would be "inadmissible when it inescapably bears solely on proving that a rape occurred" (id., at 293). In our view, accepting the applicability of People v. Taylor (supra), Dent's testimony supplied an explanation to the jury of how someone affected by sexual abuse might behave in a manner inconsistent with the alleged incident, thus assisting the jury in evaluating such behavior (see, supra, at 292-293). Accordingly, we would find Dent's testimony proper under the circumstances of this case.

Dent's testimony was offered in response to defense counsel's opening recitation that one expert, Rita Jaeger, was "not convinced that any sexual abuse occurred".

Next, we also conclude that County Court did not commit reversible error in the manner it handled defense counsel's request that it be provided with certain progress notes on the ground that such notes were Rosario (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) or Brady (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83) material. While the court denied defendant's motion for a mistrial, it nonetheless ordered that all the witnesses, including the victim, be recalled to be cross-examined by defendant. Defense counsel cross-examined the witnesses and victim on the information in the notes and they were received into evidence. We therefore conclude that even if the progress notes contained Rosario or Brady material, any delay in producing the notes did not constitute reversible error (see, People v. Wolf, 176 A.D.2d 1070) because the delay did not contribute to the verdict (see, People v. Vilardi, 76 N.Y.2d 67, 77) and did not substantially prejudice defendant (see, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 63).

Finally, we reject defendant's position that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant's proof at best raised issues of credibility which were properly left for the jury to decide (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932).

Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Loan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 23, 1992
179 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

In People v Van Loan (179 A.D.2d 885), defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse, sodomy in the first degree and second degree based on sexual assault of a male child.

Summary of this case from People v. Yates
Case details for

People v. Loan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD VAN LOAN…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 183

Citing Cases

People v. Yates

Expert testimony of child sexual abuse syndrome has been accepted in cases where the victim is male as well.…

People v. Naranjo

Initially we note that, contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly allowed a psychiatrist to…