People v. Donaldson
| Decision Date | 22 January 1985 |
| Citation | 107 A.D.2d 758,484 N.Y.S.2d 123 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ronald DONALDSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Abraham L. Clott, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Andrew Zwerling, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GIBBONS, J.P., and O'CONNOR, NIEHOFF and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered November 19, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Judgments affirmed.
On March 21, 1980, Myrtle De Hart, an elderly woman, was brutally attacked in the home in which she lived with her children and grandchildren. She had been repeatedly stabbed and cut with various kitchen utensils and was subject to severe blows to the head caused by blunt objects, including a hammer. She was found dead, lying in a pool of blood, that same day, by her son-in-law. Missing from the house after this incident was a sum of cash and some jewelry belonging to both Myrtle De Hart and her daughter.
Adriene Geiger testified at trial that she saw defendant shortly after the above incident took place, and that he had blood on his shirt sleeve. Later that day, while Geiger was at defendant's sister's house, defendant arrived and dumped the contents of a bag containing jewelry onto the bed. The jewelry was that which belonged to Myrtle De Hart and her daughter. Defendant also emptied his pockets, which contained the approximate amount of cash taken from the De Hart household.
After the police responded to the call when Mrs. De Hart was found dead, the house was dusted for fingerprints. A print was recovered in the stairwell leading from the basement to the kitchen, which matched a known print belonging to defendant. The police officer who lifted the print was permitted to testify as an expert, over defense counsel's objection, that in his opinion, the finger of the person who left the fingerprint was wet at the time the impression was made. March 21, 1980 was a rainy day, and the fact that the hand was wet at the time the print was left was further support for the inference that defendant was in the house on that particular day, rather than at some prior time. The De Hart house was burglarized about three to four months prior to this incident, and the police did not dust for fingerprints on that occasion. Defendant argued that perhaps his fingerprint was left in the house from this prior burglary, rather than the one that occurred on March 21, 1980. However, at the conclusion of the jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. Thereafter defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree to cover an unrelated indictment.
We now affirm defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stevenson
...based on his formal training and experience (see People v. Battease, 124 A.D.2d 807, 809, 509 N.Y.S.2d 39 ; People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759, 484 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). Moreover, the lack of a license or certification does not, in and of itself, disqualify a witness from testifying as an e......
-
People v. Knight
...in determining whether an individual has acquired the training necessary to be qualified as an expert" ( People v. Donaldson , 107 A.D.2d 758, 759, 484 N.Y.S.2d 123 [1985] ). The court properly determined that the officer, who testified as an expert in calibrating, maintaining, and operatin......
-
People v. Abney
...not require, the inference that the possessor was the thief (People v. Shurn, 69 A.D.2d 64, 69, 418 N.Y.S.2d 445; People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759, 484 N.Y.S.2d 123; see, also, People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 382, 469 N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752), we do not think that defenda......
-
People v. Jackson
...based on her academic training and experience (see People v. Battease, 124 A.D.2d 807, 809, 509 N.Y.S.2d 39 ; People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759, 484 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). The court also providently exercised its discretion in giving an expanded readback of the testimony of a police detecti......