People v. Hughes

• Citation: 93 A.D.3d 889,940 N.Y.S.2d 183,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01523
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Glennan HUGHES, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 01 March 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01523
93 A.D.3d 889
940 N.Y.S.2d 183

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Glennan HUGHES, Appellant.

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

March 1, 2012.

[940 N.Y.S.2d 184]

Michael I. Getz, Clifton Park, for appellant.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

[940 N.Y.S.2d 185]

Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.

GARRY, J.

[93 A.D.3d 890] Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered July 29, 2010, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

In 2007, defendant was convicted of multiple crimes arising out of allegations that he had sexually abused two young victims in the City of Glens Falls, Warren County. These convictions were reversed ( People v. Hughes, 72 A.D.3d 1121, 897 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2010] ). Defendant was subsequently retried by a jury upon a single charge of sexual abuse in the first degree. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to a prison term of seven years with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

We reject defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by County Court's evidentiary rulings pertaining to testimony describing the reaction of the victim's relatives to her disclosure of the abuse. The victim, who was 10 years old at the time of defendant's alleged conduct, testified that she did not tell anyone about it until nine years later. She testified that she kept silent in part because she feared that she would be ostracized by family members and, in particular, by defendant's wife, with whom the victim shared a close relationship. Over defendant's objection, County Court permitted the victim to testify that after she disclosed the abuse, defendant's wife did not speak to her for several years and that “everything was different with [the victim's] family.” Defendant contends that this testimony was irrelevant and so prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial.

“ ‘[E]vidence is relevant if it has any tendency in reason to prove any material fact,’ but to be admissible its probative value must not be ‘substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice’ ” ( People v. Arafet, 54 A.D.3d 517, 519, 863 N.Y.S.2d 512 [2008], affd. 13 N.Y.3d 460, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919 [2009], quoting People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 424, 425, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 [2004], cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828 [2004] ). The victim's delay in disclosing the abuse was a significant issue at trial; defendant argued that her prolonged silence indicated that the abuse had not occurred, while the People presented a forensic psychologist who testified, among other things, about psychological explanations for delayed disclosure of childhood sexual abuse ( see generally People v. Spicola, 16 N.Y.3d 441, 922 N.Y.S.2d 846, 947 N.E.2d 620 [2011], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 400, 181...