Summary
holding that while it was improper for a doctor to testify that the victim had been "raped", as this constituted the ultimate question for the jury, the error was harmless
Summary of this case from Reid v. GiambrunoOpinion
February 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
While it was improper for a doctor to testify that the victim had been "raped", as this constituted the ultimate question for the jury (see, People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430), given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, we find that the error was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).
The defendant's contention that it was improper for him to be convicted of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse for essentially the same attack is without merit. Each one of those offenses is a single-act offense, and the defendant performed separate acts fitting within the definition of the crimes charged, i.e., he had both nonconsensual intercourse and forced oral sex with the victim, and fondled her breasts, buttocks and vagina. Therefore, conviction of each of the three crimes was proper (see, People v Beauchamp, 74 N.Y.2d 639; People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 420-421).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.