People v. Sylvers
| Decision Date | 14 April 1989 |
| Citation | 149 A.D.2d 920,540 N.Y.S.2d 52 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hartwell SYLVERS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Helen Zimmermann by R. William Stephens, Buffalo, for appellant.
Kevin M. Dillon by Eleanor Kusiniec, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DOERR, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, PINE and DAVIS, JJ.
We reject defendant's contention that the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination and his comments on summation impermissibly injected the issue of race and were so prejudicial that they deprived defendant of a fair trial. The prosecutor's questions on cross-examination were directed to the matters first brought up by defendant on his direct examination and were designed to dispel defendant's contention that, even though the complainant agreed to accompany defendant home, he left the tavern before she did and waited for her outside because he, a black man, was afraid to be seen leaving the tavern with a white woman.
The trial court's finding that the complainant did not voluntarily submit to sexual contact by defendant was supported by the weight of the evidence. The evidence shows that, when defendant left the room, the complainant ran out the front door of the house and defendant ran after her and took her back into the house where he attacked her sexually. In the encounter, she suffered bruises and scratches which were later observed by a physician.
Defendant contends that the court's verdict of not guilty of rape in the first degree and guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree was repugnant and requires reversal. He contends that the only evidence of sexual contact was the testimony that defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with complainant and, therefore, there was no reasonable view of the evidence from which the trial court could have found defendant not guilty of rape, but guilty of sexual abuse. In determining whether a verdict is repugnant, the court must look only at the essential elements of the crime. Where there has been a jury trial, "a conviction will be reversed only in those instanc where acquittal on one crime as charged to the jury is conclusive as to a necessary element of the other crime, as charged, for which the guilty verdict was rendered" (People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E.2d 1081). It is possible for a defendant to commit sexual abuse,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bautista
...because he could not read the dosage instructions (see People v. Lewis, 46 A.D.3d at 946, 846 N.Y.S.2d 766 ; People v. Sylvers, 149 A.D.2d 920, 920, 540 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1989], lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 747, 545 N.Y.S.2d 122, 543 N.E.2d 765 [1989] ; People v. Kong, 131 A.D.2d 783, 784, 517 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Cassis
...a verdict is repugnant (see People v. Trappier, 87 N.Y.2d 55, 58, 637 N.Y.S.2d 352, 660 N.E.2d 1131 [1955] ; People v. Sylvers, 149 A.D.2d 920, 921, 540 N.Y.S.2d 52 [4th Dept.1989] ). A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent to commit a crime, he engages in condu......
-
People v. Sylvers
...545 N.Y.S.2d 122 74 N.Y.2d 747, 543 N.E.2d 765 People v. Sylvers (Hartwell) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK JUN 13, 1989 Simons, J. --- A.D.2d ----, 540 N.Y.S.2d 52 App.Div. 4, Erie Denied ...