[Download] "People State New York v. Alfred G. Anderson" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: People State New York v. Alfred G. Anderson
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 12, 1984
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 67 KB

Description

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Clyne, J.), rendered November 10, 1981, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of rape in the first degree. On February 28, 1981, the 10-year-old complainant was visiting with her mother and 11-year-old brother at her grandmothers house in the City of Albany. While other family members were busy elsewhere in the house, she was raped by her uncle (aged 18), defendant herein. Defendant raises several issues on this appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing cross-examination of defense witnesses concerning his failure to return home after the rape and his subsequent flight from the Albany area. This contention lacks merit. "Evidence of flight as indicative of a consciousness of guilt is a classic example of the admissibility of * * * circumstantial evidence" (People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, 304). While the probative force of this evidence is limited, that is not grounds for its exclusion (People v Cathey, 38 A.D.2d 976). We cannot agree with defendants argument that the evidence of defendants flight was too speculative to support an inference of consciousness of guilt. The record shows that defendant fled from the city immediately after a conversation with his mother, during which she asked him if he had engaged in sexual intercourse with his niece. Accordingly, an inference that his flight was precipitated by concern over the consequences of his behavior does not appear to be overly speculative. This is particularly true in the absence of any other explanation for defendants departure (see People v Bryant, 60 A.D.2d 810, app dsmd 44 N.Y.2d 790). Defendant further contends that the jury charge concerning his flight was inadequate. It is true that the trial court should have instructed the jury as to the limited probative value which may be attributed to evidence of flight (see People v Limage, 57 A.D.2d 906, affd 45 N.Y.2d 845, citing People v Yazum, supra). However, since at the time of trial, defendant did not request a further charge or except to the charge given, this issue was not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05, subd 2; People v Williams, 47 A.D.2d 262, 264). While we may still reverse in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15, subd 6, par [a]), we choose not to do so here, since the other evidence adduced at the trial [99 A.D.2d 560 Page 561]

PDF Books "People State New York v. Alfred G. Anderson" Online ePub Kindle