| People v Gopaul |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08658 [112 AD3d 964] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Harold Gopaul, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and BarbaraKornblau of counsel), for respondents.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County(McCormack, J.), rendered July 15, 2009, as amended November 30, 2009, convictinghim of sexual abuse in the first degree (14 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of those branches of the defendant'somnibus motion which were to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials andcertain physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his main brief and in point I of hispro se supplemental brief, the County Court properly denied those branches of hisomnibus motion which were to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials andcertain physical evidence. The credibility determinations of a hearing court are accordedgreat deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by therecord (see People vTandle, 71 AD3d 1176, 1178 [2010]; People v Baliukonis, 35 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]). Therecord supports the County Court's determination that the defendant's written andvideotaped statements were made after he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligentlywaived his constitutional rights, and were not the product of coercion (see People v McCray, 33AD3d 817, 818 [2006]; People v Leftenant, 22 AD3d 603, 604 [2005]). Moreover,the record supports the court's determination that the defendant voluntarily andknowingly consented to the search of his home and vehicle.
The defendant's contention, raised in his main brief and in point II of his pro sesupplemental brief, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictionsof sexual abuse in the first degree, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Pitre, 108 AD3d 643, 643 [2013]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent reviewpursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention, raised in his main brief and in pointII of his pro se supplemental brief, that the County Court erred in permitting theprosecution to elicit [*2]the complainant's testimony thatthe defendant, who is the complainant's stepfather, began touching her breasts and vaginawhen she was 14 years old, that, on another occasion, he threatened her with a knife andtold her he would cut off her finger if she did not permit such touching, and that, on yetanother occasion, he forced her to pick a date to have sexual intercourse with him. Theevidence was properly admitted as necessary background information on the nature ofthe complainant's relationship with the defendant, to place the charged conduct in contextand complete the narrative of events, and to help establish the element of forciblecompulsion (see People vLeeson, 12 NY3d 823, 827 [2009]; People v Khan, 88 AD3d 1014, 1014-1015 [2011];People v Thompson, 158 AD2d 563, 563 [1990]). Moreover, the probative value ofthe evidence outweighed any potential prejudice to the defendant, particularly in light ofthe County Court's limiting instruction to the jury as to the proper use of the unchargedcrimes evidence (see People v Khan, 88 AD3d at 1015). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, the admission of the evidence, which was the subject of relatedcharges against him pending in Queens County, did not violate his Fifth Amendmentprivilege against self-incrimination (see People v Soto, 70 AD3d 981, 981 [2010]).
The defendant's contention, raised in point III of his pro se supplemental brief, thathis due process rights were violated by the People's failure to present expert medicaltestimony in support of the complainant's allegations, is unpreserved for appellate reviewand, in any event, without merit. The defendant's contention, raised in point V of his prose supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court improperly sentenced him on a count onwhich he was found not guilty, is without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in points IV and V of his pro sesupplemental brief, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix,JJ., concur.