People v. Dominy

Decision Date16 January 1986
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Scott DOMINY, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Michael E. Basile, Schenectady, for appellant.

John B. Poersch, Dist. Atty. (Thomas W. Hefferon, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.

Before MAIN, J.P., and WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.

MIKOLL, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Stroebel, Jr., J.), rendered October 4, 1984, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

The issues raised in the instant case are identical to those raised by the codefendant in this case, Thomas Pasko, in his appeal to this court (People v. Pasko, App.Div., 495 N.Y.S.2d 100). Defendant contends that the People failed to prove that he used force in committing the crimes alleged because the only witness the People produced who could testify to force being used was the victim. Defendant argues that the victim's testimony was so inconsistent as to be incredible. We find that defendant failed to show that the victim's testimony should be discounted on the basis of it being incredible as a matter of law. Her testimony alone was sufficient to find defendant guilty of the offenses charged (see, People v. Hooper, 112 A.D.2d 317, 491 N.Y.S.2d 766). Corroboration of the rape victim's testimony is no longer required (see, Penal Law § 130.16; People v. Mattison, 97 A.D.2d 621, 622, 468 N.Y.S.2d 932). Since the evidence is to be weighed in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Monaco, 14 N.Y.2d 43, 45, 248 N.Y.S.2d 41, 197 N.E.2d 532), we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support defendant's conviction of the offenses charged.

Defendant also alleges error in the exclusion of the public from the courtroom during the victim's testimony as a violation of his right to a public trial. Where the court is aware of the sensitive nature of a complainant's testimony, as here, we find no abuse of discretion in excluding the public from the trial where the defendant makes only a general objection and fails to request a hearing on the matter (People v. Salcedo, 98 A.D.2d 961, 470 N.Y.S.2d 58, lv. denied 62 N.Y.2d 623, 476 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 464 N.E.2d 496, cert. denied 467 U.S. 1229, 104 S.Ct. 2685, 81 L.Ed.2d 880). We adopt the same reasoning on this issue as was laid out in People v. Pasko (supra).

Defendant also urges that the trial court erred when it permitted defendant to waive his right to a jury trial without inquiring into his awareness of the consequences of his waiver. We find that no inquiry was necessary here (see, e.g., People v. Duchin, 16 A.D.2d 483, 229 N.Y.S.2d 46, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 351, 239 N.Y.S.2d 670, 190 N.E.2d 17). There was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Glogowski
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • June 15, 1987
    ...630, 399 N.E.2d 518; Matter of Associated Press et al v. Bell, 128 A.D.2d 59, 130 A.D.2d 433, 515 N.Y.S.2d 432; People v. Dominy, 116 A.D.2d 851, 498 N.Y.S.2d 268). However, the precise issue here is whether the media and the public can be denied access to or copying of an exhibit that has ......
  • People v. Wood
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 4, 1999
    ...complied with by the People (see, People v. Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550, 429 N.Y.S.2d 628, 407 N.E.2d 472; People v. Dominy, 116 A.D.2d 851, 498 N.Y.S.2d 268, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 942, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 494 N.E.2d 119; People v. Salcedo, 98 A.D.2d 961, 470 N.Y.S.2d 58, cert. denied 467 U.S......
  • People v. Mikolasko
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 3, 1988
    ...and presented testimony which would have supported the claim of innocence had the jury chosen to believe it (see, People v. Dominy, 116 A.D.2d 851, 853, 498 N.Y.S.2d 268, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 942, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 494 N.E.2d 119; People v. Berard, 112 A.D.2d 470, 471, 490 N.Y.S.2d 884; Pe......
  • People v. Driver
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 16, 2021
    ...awareness was necessary (see People v Medina, 202 A.D.2d 256, 257 [1994]; People v Burnett, 136 A.D.2d 888 [1988]; People v Dominy, 116 A.D.2d 851, 852 [1986]). Defendant's contention, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as it related to the waiver of a jury trial, i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT