From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mendez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 4, 2019
178 A.D.3d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2014-10935 Ind. No. 1696/11

12-04-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Francisco MENDEZ, Appellant.

Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.


Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant.

John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor did not effectively become an unsworn expert witness during summation. The prosecutor's comments as to why a child might delay reporting sexual abuse were based on inferences that could reasonably be drawn from the evidence (see People v. Willis, 122 A.D.3d 950, 950, 997 N.Y.S.2d 472 ; People v. Crosdale, 103 A.D.3d 749, 750, 962 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; People v. Hilliard, 44 A.D.3d 498, 499, 843 N.Y.S.2d 308 ).

Furthermore, the evidence that the defendant had committed a prior sexual assault against the complainant's sister, which resulted in the family mistreating and harassing the sister instead of helping her, was probative of the complainant's state of mind with respect to why the complainant delayed reporting the abuse committed against him (see People v. Guagenti, 264 A.D.2d 427, 695 N.Y.S.2d 109 ), and the probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment (see People v. Ruiz, 57 A.D.3d 576, 867 N.Y.S.2d 697 ).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mendez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Dec 4, 2019
178 A.D.3d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Mendez

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Francisco Mendez…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 4, 2019

Citations

178 A.D.3d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
111 N.Y.S.3d 225
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 8705

Citing Cases

People v. Kattau

The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly admitted testimony relating to his ownership and…