People v. Loan

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Khadaidi

    201 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

    This information had to have come from the complainant, since the only other place it could have come from was the police, and Scalice testified that the only thing she wrote down from the police was information regarding the vouchering of certain items. Thus, this information was Rosario material as to the complainant (see, People v. Rosario, supra; CPL 240.44). Nevertheless, the trial court refused to allow the defendant to recall the complainant for further cross-examination, and imposed no sanction. Under these circumstances, we find that the defendant was substantially prejudiced, and a new trial is required (see generally, People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940; cf., People v. Van Loan, 179 A.D.2d 885, 886). With respect to the second alleged Rosario violation, the record indicates that the complainant was taken to the hospital by the defendant after the incident.

  2. People v. Maymi

    198 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    The testimony also assisted the jury by explaining that the victim experienced psychological stress which was not apparent from her testimony. Thus, it supplied the jury with an explanation as to why someone who had been raped appeared to act in a manner inconsistent with the alleged incident (People v Van Loan, 179 A.D.2d 885, 886, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1008). In any event, any prejudice was dissipated when the court instructed the jury, both after the expert finished testifying and in its main charge, that the testimony was not offered for the truth of the allegations (People v Story, 176 A.D.2d 1080, 1081, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 864).

  3. People v. Naranjo

    194 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 14 times

    Initially we note that, contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly allowed a psychiatrist to offer expert testimony concerning child sexual abuse syndrome to explain why victims of sexual abuse or rape may delay in reporting the crime (see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277; People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410; People v. Singh, 186 A.D.2d 285; People v Sansevero, 185 A.D.2d 256; People v. Daniels, 185 A.D.2d 894; People v. Guce, 164 A.D.2d 946, 950; People v. Ivory, 162 A.D.2d 551, 552). Insofar as the defendant is claiming on appeal that certain aspects of the expert's testimony constituted improper bolstering of the complainant's testimony or otherwise invaded the factfinding province of the jury, the claims are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to address them (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Van Loan, 179 A.D.2d 885). In addition, the trial court did not err in excluding evidence purportedly of the complainant's prior sexual history (see, People v. Boyd, 122 A.D.2d 273). After the People rested, the defendant sought to testify that the complainant's mother told him that she received a letter from an aunt in Ecuador informing her that the complainant had been sexually molested before coming to the United States. The defendant argued that such evidence was relevant because of the medical testimony that the complainant's hymen had been "ruptured", and the implication that he was the cause.

  4. People v. Yates

    168 Misc. 2d 101 (N.Y. Misc. 1995)   Cited 7 times

    Expert testimony of child sexual abuse syndrome has been accepted in cases where the victim is male as well. 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. The Third Department, relying on People v Taylor (supra), approved the admission of testimony by a child therapist to explain the victim's behavior.