Opinion
12587 Ind. No. 2869/15 Case No. 2018-1188
12-10-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan MATHEWS, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jose David Rodriguez Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily A. Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jose David Rodriguez Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily A. Aldridge of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), rendered August 8, 2016, as amended September 13, 2016, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the third degree, forcible touching, sexual abuse in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of four years, unanimously affirmed.
The trial court properly admitted the text exchange between the victim and her friend pursuant to the prompt outcry exception to the principle that "[a] witness'[s] trial testimony ordinarily may not be bolstered with pretrial statements" ( People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 16, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364, 611 N.E.2d 265 [1993] [internal citation omitted] ). These text messages which occurred just after the sexual assault, while acknowledging that a sexual act had occurred did not include detailed allegations, "did not exceed the allowable level of detail," and fell well within the bounds of admissible prompt outcry evidence (see McDaniel at 18, 595 N.Y.S.2d 364, 611 N.E.2d 265 ; see also People v. Ludwig, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 231–232, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351, 21 N.E.3d 1012 [2014] ). In any event, any error in admitting this evidence was harmless (see id. at 230, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351, 21 N.E.3d 1012 ; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).
The court providently exercised its discretion in placing reasonable limits on cross-examination regarding circumstances that allegedly gave rise to hostility by the victim against defendant. The connection between these circumstances and the victim's alleged fabrication of rape charges was speculative, remote and unsupported by anything else in the record (see People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584 [1978], appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891, 100 S.Ct. 197, 62 L.Ed.2d 127 [1979] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence, including the 10–year period of postrelease supervision.