| People v Segarra |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09935 [46 AD3d 363] |
| December 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoseSegarra, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered May 9, 2003,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the second degree and endangering thewelfare of a child, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2
The court properly applied the Rape Shield Law (CPL 60.42) in precluding evidence of thechild victim's alleged prior sexual conduct. The Shield Law applied because defendant wasessentially seeking to establish the victim's conduct, and not merely offering the victim'sstatements about such conduct as allegedly relevant to his state of mind. Regardless of whetherthe Shield Law applied, the connection between the proffered evidence and the victim's motive orability to fabricate sodomy charges against defendant was so tenuous that the evidence wasentirely irrelevant (see generally People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 312-315 [1993]). Wenote that the prosecutor never made any arguments that could be viewed as opening the door tosuch evidence. In any event, defendant was still able to place this alleged conduct before the juryat several junctures, including his own testimony and his cross-examination of the victim. Wefind no violation of defendant's right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Crane vKentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]; Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673,678-679 [1986]). Finally, were we to find any error, constitutional or otherwise, we would find itharmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including defendant's tapedadmissions which demonstrate convincingly his sexual conduct with this 13-year-old victim.
We see no reason to remand this case for a determination as to whether the People made anincomplete disclosure of Rosario material, since there is no evidence suggesting that thePeople violated their disclosure obligations, and since defendant abandoned any such objectionby failing to pursue it at a time when it could have been easily resolved (see People vTamayo, 222 AD2d 321 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 886 [1996]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Catterson and Malone, JJ.