| People v Patterson |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 06649 |
| Decided on November 13, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| 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. |
Decided on November 13, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, TROUTMAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
951 KA 20-00710
v
JORDAN R. PATTERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LINDSEY M. PIEPER, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CAROLINE A. WOJTASZEK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. JORDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered November 7, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of rape in the second degree (eight counts), criminal sexual act in the second degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.
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 of, inter alia, rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court deprived him of his right to present a defense by limiting his cross-examination of a sexual assault nurse examiner and a forensic chemist. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in limiting the cross-examination of those witnesses, we conclude that defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense (see generally Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284, 302 [1973]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]) and according deference to the jury's credibility determinations (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644 [2006]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant failed to preserve his remaining contentions for our review, and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
Entered: November 13, 2020
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court