| People v MacDonald |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04465 [63 AD3d 1520] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Scott R.MacDonald, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), renderedJuly 19, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree(three counts) and conspiracy in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, ofthree counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) and one count ofconspiracy in the fourth degree (§ 105.10 [1]). Viewing the evidence in light of theelements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we concludethat the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We reject the contention of defendant that he wasdenied a fair trial by County Court's denial of his motion to subpoena the psychiatric records ofan accomplice who testified against him in order to ascertain the medications being taken by theaccomplice. Inasmuch as defendant was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine theaccomplice concerning any medications taken by him and failed to do so, we cannot concludethat defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial by the court's denial of his motion.
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion by admittingin evidence expert testimony concerning rape trauma syndrome. Such testimony "may beadmitted to explain behavior of a victim that might appear unusual or that jurors may not beexpected to understand" (People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; see also Peoplev Hryckewicz, 221 AD2d 990 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 849 [1996]). We furtherconclude that the court properly refused to dismiss the indictment on the ground of impropergeographical jurisdiction, inasmuch as the People established by a preponderance of theevidence that defendant and his accomplices conspired to commit rape in Onondaga County(see CPL 20.40 [1] [b]; People v Moore, 46 NY2d 1, 6 [1978]; People vDeGraw, 140 AD2d 984 [1988]). Furthermore, the People established that the rapesoccurred in a vehicle during the course of a trip between counties, and thus the offenses "may beprosecuted in any county through which such vehicle passed in the course of such trip" (CPL20.40 [4] [g]; see People v Curtis, 286 AD2d 901 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 728[2002]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.