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.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. SHAWN A. MULCAHEY, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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 course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.80[1][b] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in allowing the People to present evidence of certain behavior by defendant while he committed the charged crime. That evidence was relevant to establish that defendant acted for the purpose of gratifying his sexual desire, which is an element of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 130.00[3], [10]; 130.80[1][b] ), and the prosecutor was “not required to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the [P]eople intend to prove the elements of the offense charged” (CPL 200.95[1] [a] ).
We also reject defendant's contention that the court abused its discretion in limiting defense counsel's questioning of prospective jurors concerning prior criminal defense matters in which he was involved, inasmuch as the court “must preclude repetitive or irrelevant questioning” during voir dire (People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744, 745; see People v. Steward, 17 NY3d 104, 110). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was prejudiced by the court's facial expression during cross-examination of a prosecution witness. Defendant made no further objection after the court granted his request for a curative instruction, and the curative instruction is therefore “deemed to have corrected the [alleged] error to ․ defendant's satisfaction” (People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: KA 15–01581
Decided: December 23, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)