People v. Adkinson
| Decision Date | 22 May 1995 |
| Citation | 215 A.D.2d 673,628 N.Y.S.2d 711 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Randy ADKINSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Andrew E. Abraham, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie and Shawn Kerby, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and COPERTINO, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), rendered June 7, 1993, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (four counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (six counts), assault in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at trial establishes that, on the morning of May 3, 1992, the defendant accosted the then-10-year-old complainant in the lobby of the complainant's apartment building. The defendant forced the complainant to go to the roof of the building where the defendant sodomized him. Immediately following the incident, the complainant returned to his apartment and reported the incident to his aunt, who telephoned 911.
When the aunt was unavailable to testify at trial regarding the contents of her telephone call, the trial court precluded the defendant from introducing into evidence a transcription of her telephone call under the present-sense exception to the hearsay rule. The court's ruling was proper since the aunt was not an eyewitness to the sodomy (cf. People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696, 610 N.E.2d 369; People v. Jardin, 154 Misc.2d 172, 584 N.Y.S.2d 732).
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 120.05[2]; 10.00[13]; see generally, People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113, 440 N.Y.S.2d 607, 423 N.E.2d 30).
The defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are without merit (see generally, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 397 N.Y.S.2d 619, 366 N.E.2d 279, cert. denied 451 U.S. 914, 101 S.Ct. 1989, 68 L.Ed.2d 305; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885).
The defendant's sentence is neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780, 587...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Skolar
...670 N.E.2d 1328 (N.Y.1996) (statements made in a 911 call, not contemporaneous with incident not admissible); People v. Adkinson, 215 A.D.2d 673, 628 N.Y.S.2d 711 (2d Dept.1995)(transcript of a 911 call was not admissible as present sense exception because the caller not an eyewitness), aff......
-
People v. Vasquez
...213 and People v. Dalton, 217 A.D.2d 587, 629 N.Y.S.2d 86 the orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed; in People v. Adkinson, 215 A.D.2d 673, 628 N.Y.S.2d 711, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with this opinion and otherwise KAYE, C.J., and SI......
- Westchester County Dept. of Social Services Ashanti R.) v. Felicia R.
-
People v. Adkinson
...638 N.Y.S.2d 602 87 N.Y.2d 843, 661 N.E.2d 1383 People v. Randy Adkinson Court of Appeals of New York Nov 08, 1995 Ciparick, J. 215 A.D.2d 673, 628 N.Y.S.2d 711 App.Div. 2, Queens Granted. ...