People v. Coapman

• Decision Date: 30 December 2011
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maxwell S. COAPMAN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09740
90 A.D.3d 1681
936 N.Y.S.2d 454

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Maxwell S. COAPMAN, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 30, 2011.

[936 N.Y.S.2d 455]

D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney, Auburn (Christopher T. Valdina of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, GREEN, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[90 A.D.3d 1682] On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50[4] ) and two counts of rape in the second degree (§ 130.30[1] ), defendant contends that he was deprived of the right to fair notice of the charges against him because the dates in the indictment on which the offenses allegedly occurred were overbroad. We reject that contention. “In view of the age of the victim and the date on which she reported the crimes, we conclude that the one-month and two-month periods specified in the indictment provided defendant with adequate notice of the charges against him to enable him to prepare a

[936 N.Y.S.2d 456]

defense” ( People v. Franks, 35 A.D.3d 1286, 1286, 825 N.Y.S.2d 872, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 922, 834 N.Y.S.2d 512, 866 N.E.2d 458; see generally People v. Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290, 295–296, 473 N.Y.S.2d 769, 461 N.E.2d 1256).

We reject defendant's further contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment to secure the attendance of a defense witness. “It is incumbent on a defendant seeking an adjournment to procure a witness to show that the witness's testimony would be material, noncumulative and favorable to the defense” ( People v. Softic, 17 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 793 N.Y.S.2d 656, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 794, 801 N.Y.S.2d 815, 835 N.E.2d 675; see People v. Acevedo, 295 A.D.2d 141, 742 N.Y.S.2d 833, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 766, 752 N.Y.S.2d 6, 781 N.E.2d 918). While defendant established that the testimony of the proposed witness would have been favorable to the defense, he failed to establish that the testimony was material. Furthermore, the proposed witness was not scheduled to leave the country until the third day of trial, and the court offered to permit the witness to testify out of order or by video. Because the court afforded defendant the opportunity to call the witness to testify before the witness's scheduled departure, we conclude that there has been no showing of prejudice such that it can be said that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request for an adjournment ( see People v. Peterkin, 81 A.D.3d 1358, 1360, 921 N.Y.S.2d 744, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 799, 929 N.Y.S.2d 107, 952 N.E.2d 1102).

Contrary to defendant's contention, the court did not err in admitting in evidence a letter that defendant wrote to his [90 A.D.3d 1683] adopted daughter discussing the alleged sexual abuse of the victim. There were “sufficient assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence ..., and thus any alleged gaps in the...