People v. Khan

• Decision Date: 25 October 2011
• Citation: People v. Khan, 88 A.D.3d 1014, 931 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Abu KHAN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 1014

931 N.Y.S.2d 393

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07655

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Abu KHAN, appellant.

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

Oct. 25, 2011.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel and Jill A. Gross–Marks of counsel), for respondent.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, RANDALL T. ENG, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered July 24, 2007, convicting him of rape in the first degree, course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecution to elicit evidence that the defendant, charged with sexually touching the younger–than–11–year–old victim from 1997 to 2000 while the family lived in Queens, and with one rape of the victim in Queens in November 2004, raped the victim on frequent occasions between 2001 and 2004 while the family lived in Florida. The evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate the defendant's pattern of escalating sexual conduct toward the victim during the period between the charged crimes, and as relevant background information to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the victim and to place the events in question in a believable context, particularly since the defendant raised the issue of the victim's delayed disclosure of the charged criminal conduct ( see People v. Leeson, 12 N.Y.3d 823, 826–827, 880 N.Y.S.2d 895, 908 N.E.2d 885; People v. Haidara, 65 A.D.3d 974, 885 N.Y.S.2d 415; People v. Cardona, 60 A.D.3d 493, 493–494, 874 N.Y.S.2d 474; People v. Workman, 56 A.D.3d 1155, 1156–1157, 868 N.Y.S.2d 430; People v. Rosario, 34 A.D.3d 370, 824 N.Y.S.2d 296). Moreover, the probative value and the need for the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's limiting instruction to the jury as to the proper use of the uncharged crimes evidence ( see People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654; People v. Holden, 82 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 918 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Rock, 65 A.D.3d 558, 559, 882 N.Y.S.2d 907; People v. Melendez, 8 A.D.3d 680, 681, 778 N.Y.S.2d 894).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, ...