Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Galloway

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


April 16, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
BLAINE GALLOWAY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered June 13, 2006, as amended June 30, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree (two counts), criminal sexual act in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Gonzalez, P.J., Nardelli, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick, JJ.

3906/05

The court properly permitted the prosecutor to elicit evidence that 10 months before the charged crimes defendant punched the victim, his girlfriend, over a perceived infidelity. The evidence constituted highly probative background information that tended to explain the relationship between defendant and the victim (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16 [2009]). This evidence also placed the victim's testimony in a believable context and tended to refute defendant's defense (see People v Steinberg, 170 AD2d 50, 72-74 [1991], affd 79 NY2d 673 [1992]). Defendant's remaining arguments concerning this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

The court's Sandoval ruling, permitting only limited inquiry into defendant's extensive record, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]).

Defendant's generalized objections did not preserve his challenges to the prosecutor's summation comments (see People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879 [1994]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090416

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.