People v. Randall

Full title: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MATTHEW RANDALL…

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

Date published: May 2, 1996

227 A.D.2d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

641 N.Y.S.2d 639

Opinion

May 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, defendant's guilt of the multiple sexual assaults against the victim was proven by legally sufficient evidence. Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

The brief testimony of the treating doctor concerning the details of the rape was relevant to his treatment and diagnosis, and therefore admissible ( compare, People v. Torres, 175 A.D.2d 635, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1082, with People v. Jackson, 124 A.D.2d 975, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 746). To the extent the doctor's testimony revealed limited details of the assault, such as the number of perpetrators and that it occurred at gunpoint, that testimony merely repeated the victim's unwavering testimony on these points, and therefore was harmless ( People v. Torres, 175 A.D.2d, supra, at 636-637). Since the testimony of the arresting officer exceeding the scope of the prompt outcry exception was limited, we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.

Given defendant's attack on the victim's ability to perceive and remember the events of the rape, the introduction of defendant's redacted arrest photograph to demonstrate the accuracy of her description was not error ( see, People v. Logan,

25 N.Y.2d 184), notwithstanding defendant's concession that he had intercourse with the victim.

Defendant's claim concerning the improper admission of uncharged crimes was not preserved by specific objection ( see, People v. Aarons, 183 A.D.2d 496, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 827), and, in any event, the alleged prejudicial comments were not directed at defendant.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.