Summary
In People v Pierre (215 AD2d 599 [2d Dept 1995]), the Court citing People v Keindl (68 NY2d 410 [1986]) held "The trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony as to the psychological and behavioral characteristics typically shared by children who are victims of sexual abuse in a familial setting."
Summary of this case from People v. CoulterOpinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Weston-Patterson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725; People v Pride, 173 A.D.2d 651; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245), and, in any event, they lack merit. The trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony as to the psychological and behavioral characteristics typically shared by children who are victims of sexual abuse in a familial setting (see, People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410; People v Pegram, 191 A.D.2d 719). Nor did the trial court err in permitting the prosecution to elicit, on redirect examination, testimony regarding uncharged crimes when the defendant opened the door to that testimony on cross examination (see, People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445). Finally, although the trial court expanded upon the statutory language in instructing the jury not to draw an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to testify, the charge was neutral in tone, consistent in substance with the intent of the statute, not so lengthy as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify, and did not imply that the failure to testify was a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right. Thus, the court's charge did not constitute reversible error (see, CPL 300.10; People v Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725, supra; People v Pride, 173 A.D.2d 651, supra). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.