From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 17, 1997
238 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 17, 1997


Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered January 5, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of rape in the first degree, two counts of sodomy in the first degree, two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years on the rape convictions, to be served consecutively to concurrent terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years on the sodomy convictions, and also to be served consecutively to concurrent terms of 3 1/2 to 7 years on the sexual abuse convictions, all such sentences running concurrently with concurrent prison sentences of 1 year on the endangering the welfare of a child convictions, unanimously affirmed.

The time frames set forth in the indictment were sufficiently narrow. The longest time period charged was a 3 month summer period, and in view of the tender age of the victim, the nature of the crime, the People's diligence, and all the surrounding circumstances, this period was not excessively broad ( see, People v. Watt, 84 N.Y.2d 948; People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410).

Defendant's general objection failed to preserve his various current challenges to the admissibility and scope of the prompt outcry testimony elicited with respect to one of the child victims ( see, People v. Pace, 145 A.D.2d 834, 836, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 894) and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that, given the child's age, ability to communicate, and fear of defendant, the outcry evidence was properly admitted and did not contain excessive detail ( see, People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 17-18; People v. Arredondo, 226 A.D.2d 322, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 964).

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to reopen their direct examination of one of the child victims during redirect examination ( see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Sanders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 17, 1997
238 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Sanders

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GREGORY SANDERS…

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

Date published: Apr 17, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
656 N.Y.S.2d 255

Citing Cases

PEOPLE v. RAPP

Defendant's present challenges to the admissibility and scope of prompt outcry testimony are largely…

People v. Al-Sabahi

The court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that any probative value in admitting the…