People v. White
| Decision Date | 14 April 1989 |
| Citation | 540 N.Y.S.2d 72,149 A.D.2d 939 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Morris WHITE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Helen Zimmermann by Barbara Eberl, Buffalo, for appellant.
Kevin M. Dillon, by James Kissel, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, GREEN, and DAVIS, JJ.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his conviction of two counts of sodomy in the third degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that defendant was "twenty-one years old or more" (see, Penal Law § 130.40[2] ) when he engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with his 16 year old daughter. We disagree. Contrary to defendant's claim, the trial court properly admitted the testimony regarding his age given by his two teenage daughters (see, People v. Patterson, 149 A.D.2d 966, 540 N.Y.S.2d 626; Richardson, Evidence §§ 361, 364 et seq. [Prince 10th ed]; 58 NY Jur2d Evidence § 726). Moreover, the trial court properly received in evidence the defendant's statement of his age given to a police officer who elicited pedigree information. The People were not required to serve the defendant with notice of their intent to offer into evidence his statement concerning his age because this information related to pedigree and therefore was not properly subject to a motion to suppress pursuant to CPL 60.45 (CPL 710.20, 710.30[1][a]; People v. Rodriquez, 39 N.Y.2d 976, 387 N.Y.S.2d 110, 354 N.E.2d 850; People v. Rivera, 26 N.Y.2d 304, 310 N.Y.S.2d 287, 258 N.E.2d 699; People v. Miller, 123 A.D.2d 721, 507 N.Y.S.2d 409, appeal denied sub nom. People v. Keating, 70 N.Y.2d 933, 524 N.Y.S.2d 685, 519 N.E.2d 631).
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kennard, 224
...874–875, 543 N.Y.S.2d 175 [3d Dept. 1989], lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 804, 546 N.Y.S.2d 562, 545 N.E.2d 876 [1989] ; People v. White, 149 A.D.2d 939, 939, 540 N.Y.S.2d 72 [4th Dept. 1989], lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 821, 546 N.Y.S.2d 579, 545 N.E.2d 893 [1989] ). The same is true of the questions related......
-
People v. Armendariz
...that defendant was over 21 years old when he engaged in sexual intercourse with the 16–year–old victim ( People v. White, 149 A.D.2d 939, 939, 540 N.Y.S.2d 72 [4th Dept. 1989], lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 821, 546 N.Y.S.2d 579, 545 N.E.2d 893 [1989] ; see generally People v. Perryman, 178 A.D.2d 91......
-
People v. Patterson
...is based, and after describing as far as practicable, the appearance of the person whose age is in question (see, People v. White, 149 A.D.2d 939, 540 N.Y.S.2d 72 [1989]; Hartshorn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 55 App.Div. 471, 67 N.Y.S. 13). Although the prosecutor could have laid a bette......
-
People v. Vaccarella
...such pedigree statements are not even arguably subject to suppression, the People were not required to give notice (see, People v. White, 149 A.D.2d 939, 540 N.Y.S.2d 72, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 821, 546 N.Y.S.2d 579, 545 N.E.2d Judgment unanimously affirmed. ...