People v. Powell

Mar 21, 2003
Reporters:
, ,

—Appeal from a judgment of Niagara County Court (Sperrazza, J.), entered May 15, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts).

It is ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.65 [3]) and three counts of *979endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍deprived of a fair trial when County Court questioned two witnesses regarding their testimonial capacity in the presence of the jury (see People v Pochily, 255 AD2d 695, 696 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 856 [1999]; People v Gallow, 171 AD2d 1061, 1062 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 995 [1991]; see also People v Peters, 242 AD2d 930, 931 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 896 [1998]; see generally CPL 60.20 [2]). Defendant waived his challenge to the legal sufficiency of ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍the evidence by failing to renew his motion to dismiss on that ground at the close of his case (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Hill, 300 AD2d 1125 [2002]; People v Kerner, 299 AD2d 913 [2002]). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍contention that the court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness concerning defendant’s prior bad acts and uncharged crimes without conducting a Ventimiglia hearing (see 470.05 [2]; People v Vaughn, 291 AD2d 915 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 762 [2002]; People v Carter, 263 AD2d 958 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 820 [1999]; People v Preston, 255 AD2d 530, 530-531 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 976 [1999]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.