PEOPLE v. BLACK (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2] ) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ).  We reject defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in admitting photographs portraying the victim's injuries (see generally People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 835, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278).  “The general rule is that photographs of the [victim's injuries] are admissible if [, inter alia,] they ․ illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence” (People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637, rearg. denied 33 N.Y.2d 657, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 303 N.E.2d 710, cert. denied 416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 110) and, here, the photographs were probative with respect to the physical injury element of assault in the second degree (see generally People v. Davis, 39 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 835 N.Y.S.2d 784, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 864, 840 N.Y.S.2d 894, 872 N.E.2d 1200;  People v. Butera, 23 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 803 N.Y.S.2d 856, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 774, 811 N.Y.S.2d 341, 844 N.E.2d 796, 6 N.Y.3d 832, 814 N.Y.S.2d 80, 847 N.E.2d 377).  Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court's Sandoval ruling, pursuant to which the court limited questioning on the two convictions at issue to whether defendant had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor on specified dates, did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see generally People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 207–208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963;  People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458–460, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472).

 Defendant further contends that she was penalized for exercising her right to trial based on the fact that she received a greater sentence after trial than was offered prior to trial.  We reject that contention (see People v. Alexander, 51 A.D.3d 1380, 1384, 857 N.Y.S.2d 418;  People v. Taplin, 1 A.D.3d 1044, 1046, 767 N.Y.S.2d 541, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 635, 777 N.Y.S.2d 33, 808 N.E.2d 1292).  Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: