People v. BernardezPeople v. Bernardez
The defendant‘s claim that the County Court erred in admitting certain testimony as evidence of prompt outcry (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16 [1993]) is without merit. “A witness is allowed to go beyond answering a simple ‘yes’ to the question of whether the complainant made a prompt outcry. The prosecutor was entitled to elicit the nature of the complaint and the testimony did not exceed the allowable level of detail” (People v Salazar, 234 AD2d 322, 323 [1996]; see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d at 16-18; Matter of Christian V., 46 AD3d 831, 832 [2007]; People v Clarke, 7 AD3d 537, 538 [2004]).
The defendant‘s contentions that the County Court erred and denied him his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him by improperly curtailing his cross-examination of a prosecution witness are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v George, 67 NY2d 817, 819 [1986]; People v Olibencia, 45 AD3d 607, 608 [2007]) and, in any event, are without merit (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679 [1986]; People v Duffy, 36 NY2d 258, 262 [1975], cert denied 423 US 861 [1975]; People v Stevens, 45 AD3d 610, 611 [2007]; Matter of Qili W., 298 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; People v Thomches, 172 AD2d 786 [1991]).
The defendant‘s claims that the County Court erred and denied him his constitutional rights to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against him by refusing to admit a police report into evidence also are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v George, 67 NY2d at 819; People v Olibencia, 45 AD3d at 608) and, in any event, are without merit (see Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 123 [1979]; People v White, 272 AD2d 239, 240 [2000]; Liguori v City of New York, 250 AD2d 738, 739 [1998]; People v Gooding, 202 AD2d 375, 376 [1994]).
The defendant‘s contention that the County Court penalized him for choosing to go to trial instead of accepting a plea offer is without merit (see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 411-412 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1087 [1981]; People v Gillian, 28 AD3d 577, 578 [2006]; People v Lewis, 242 AD2d 307, 308 [1997]).
The sentences imposed on the defendant‘s convictions of burglary in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.