People v. Dorsey
| Decision Date | 04 October 1990 |
| Citation | 166 A.D.2d 180,560 N.Y.S.2d 296 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MURPHY, P.J., and CARRO, ELLERIN, WALLACH and SMITH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered March 24, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of sodomy in the first degree and two counts of sodomy in the second degree, and sentencing him to two concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 8 1/3 to 25 years for the first degree counts, a concurrent term of 2 1/3 to 7 years on one second degree count, and a consecutive term of 2 1/3 to 7 years on the remaining count, unanimously affirmed.
On July 31, 1987, defendant met J., a thirteen year old boy. Defendant offered him a job, and as part of an "exam" conducted in a basement office, defendant demanded that J. remove his shorts and underwear. Later that day, after J. had begun to work, defendant grabbed J. and sodomized him. J. was too frightened to tell his parents what had happened. The following day, defendant again sodomized J., ignoring his struggles and pleas. After the second attack, J. revealed these acts to his family. The next morning, J.'s mother notified police. A hospital examination revealed evidence of anal bruising. A police serologist found a semen stain on the underwear J. had worn during both attacks. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. den., 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264) we find that there was adequate proof that defendant had committed each of the crimes for which he was convicted. While J.'s and the detectives' testimony were sufficient to sustain the convictions, the presence of semen on the bottom of J.'s underwear further corroborated J.'s account of the attacks.
Defendant claims that the underwear was incorrectly admitted into evidence. However, the evidence was "sufficiently connected" with defendant to be relevant to this case (People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453, 297 N.Y.S.2d 532, 245 N.E.2d 194), and there was a reasonable assurance of identity and unchanged condition. (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310).
Defendant asserts that the indictment was defective since the prosecutor, after the grand jury voted a true...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Grimes
...787;People v. Lyons, 40 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 837 N.Y.S.2d 706,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 878, 842 N.Y.S.2d 790, 874 N.E.2d 757;People v. Dorsey, 166 A.D.2d 180, 181, 560 N.Y.S.2d 296,lv. denied76 N.Y.2d 1020, 565 N.Y.S.2d 770, 566 N.E.2d 1175,reconsideration denied77 N.Y.2d 877, 568 N.Y.S.2d 920, 571......
-
Dorsey v. Kelly
...trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The Appellate Division nevertheless affirmed Dorsey's conviction. People v. Dorsey, 166 A.D.2d 180, 560 N.Y.S.2d 296, 297 (1st Dept 1990). Both through his attorney and pro se, Dorsey sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.......
-
People v. Dorsey
...on the bottom of [complainant]'s underwear further corroborated [complainant]'s account of the attacks" ( People v. Dorsey, 166 A.D.2d 180, 181, 560 N.Y.S.2d 296 [1st Dept. 1990], lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 1020, 565 N.Y.S.2d 770, 566 N.E.2d 1175 [1990], lv denied on reconsideration 77 N.Y.2d 877,......
- People v. Polk