Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shedrick WOODEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of three counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.35 [1]; §§ 20.00, former 130.35[1] ), four counts of sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50[1]; §§ 20.00, former 130.50 [1] ), five counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (former § 130.65 [1]; §§ 20.00, former 130.65 [1] ), and two counts of attempted sodomy in the first degree (§§ 20.00, 110.00, former 130.50[1] ). Defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting the allegedly inflammatory testimony of the People's expert was previously raised in the appeal of a codefendant, wherein we determined that the contention lacks merit (People v. Cook, 286 A.D.2d 917, 731 N.Y.S.2d 412, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 680, 738 N.Y.S.2d 295, 764 N.E.2d 399). We further reject defendant's contention that the expert's testimony impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant. “The testimony was admissible to establish that a lack of semen does not preclude a finding that a rape occurred” (id.; see also People v. Houston, 250 A.D.2d 535, 536, 673 N.Y.S.2d 425, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 983, 683 N.Y.S.2d 764, 706 N.E.2d 752) and cannot be said to have shifted the burden of proof to defendant. Defendant failed, however, to preserve for our review his remaining contentions concerning the alleged absence of a proper foundation for the expert's testimony and a proper showing that such testimony is generally accepted in the scientific community (see generally People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324, 428 N.Y.S.2d 914, 406 N.E.2d 771). In addition, the further contention of defendant that the court should have severed his trial from that of his codefendants based upon alleged threatening statements made to the victims by certain codefendants is also unpreserved for our review. Defendant's pretrial severance motion was premised upon a ground different from the ground now raised on appeal (see People v. Reed, 236 A.D.2d 866, 866, 654 N.Y.S.2d 498, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1099, 660 N.Y.S.2d 393, 682 N.E.2d 994; see also People v. Jackson, 203 A.D.2d 956, 957, 612 N.Y.S.2d 96, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 147, 641 N.E.2d 168). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). Finally, although defendant is correct that the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment imposed by the court exceeds the permissible maximum term, the sentence with respect to each count is within the legal parameters. Thus, the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment is reduced by operation of law to 25 to 50 years (see Penal Law § 70.30[1][e][vi] ). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 03, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)