People v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2008-10043 |
| Citation | 126 A.D.3d 1016,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02510,6 N.Y.S.3d 119 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ronald SHAW, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
126 A.D.3d 1016
6 N.Y.S.3d 119
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 02510
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Ronald SHAW, appellant.
2008-10043
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 25, 2015.
Dennis Claus, Syracuse, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered October 9, 2008, convicting him of rape in the first degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right
to present a complete defense by the Supreme Court's application of the Rape Shield Law (CPL 60.42 ) to exclude evidence of unidentified semen found on the complainant's underwear is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ). In any event, the defendant's right to present a defense was not unduly curtailed by the court's application of the Rape Shield Law (see People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d at 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; People v. Weinberg, 75 A.D.3d 612, 613, 904 N.Y.S.2d 906 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by being compelled to appear before a panel of prospective jurors in his prison garb is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 470.05[2] ; Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512–513, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 ; People v. Bullock, 28 A.D.3d 673, 673, 813 N.Y.S.2d 223 ).
The defendant's challenge to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baker
...710.60(2)(a) is not properly before this Court, as the defendant raises it for the first time in his reply brief (see People v. Shaw, 126 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 6 N.Y.S.3d 119 ). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ;......
-
People v. Ellis, 2012–07219
...order to obtain civilian clothes (see CPL 470.05[2] ; Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126, People v. Shaw, 126 A.D.3d 1016, 1017, 6 N.Y.S.3d 119 ; People v. Bullock, 28 A.D.3d 673, 673, 813 N.Y.S.2d 223 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. While "th......
-
People v. Cutting
...Rape Shield Law was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v. Weberman, 134 A.D.3d 862, 863, 22 N.Y.S.3d 97 ; People v. Shaw, 126 A.D.3d 1016, 1016, 6 N.Y.S.3d 119 ; People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d at 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; see also People v. Tohom, 109 A.D.3d 253, 274, 969 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Baker
...CPL 710.60(2)(a) is not properly before this Court, as the defendant raises it for the first time in his reply brief (see People v Shaw, 126 A.D.3d 1016, 1017). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danie......