PEOPLE v. PEREZ CASTELLANOS (2022)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered October 28, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of predatory sexual assault against a child and course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 50 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in admitting uncharged acts of sexual abuse, against the same victims, that occurred outside the times charged in the indictment.  Under the unusual facts presented, the uncharged crimes were inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, and were admissible to provide necessary background information, to complete the narrative, and to “place the People's case in a believable context” (People v. Nevaro, 139 A.D.3d 525, 526, 31 N.Y.S.3d 498 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 934, 40 N.Y.S.3d 362, 63 N.E.3d 82 [2016];  see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 [2009];  People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 72–74, 573 N.Y.S.2d 965 [1991], affd 79 N.Y.2d 673, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [1992]).  Although defendant abused his young cousins for continuous periods of up to seven years, because of statutory requirements regarding the respective ages of the victim and defendant, he was only charged with particular periods of abuse that met those requirements.  These periods would appear to the jury to be inexplicably disconnected.  Limiting the victims’ testimony to only these disjointed charged periods would misleadingly suggest that no abuse happened outside of those periods, and could make the charged incidents appear to be implausible.  The probative value of the uncharged crimes evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also providently exercised its discretion in permitting the victims to testify about how they came to reveal the abuse to others, and in permitting the nonvictims to whom these disclosures were made to give brief and limited testimony about the victims’ disclosures.  The prior consistent statements, for which the court issued appropriate limiting instructions, were admissible to assist in “explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest” (People v. Ludwig, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 231, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351, 21 N.E.3d 1012 [2014];  see also People v. Honghirun, 29 N.Y.3d 284, 289–290, 56 N.Y.S.3d 275, 78 N.E.3d 804 [2017];  People v. Gross, 26 N.Y.3d 689, 694–695, 27 N.Y.S.3d 459, 47 N.E.3d 738 [2016]).  Although the disclosures at issue were made to civilians rather than being made directly to the police, this evidence tended to explain the long, complex chain of events that transpired between the crimes and defendant's ultimate arrest.  Testimony about the victims’ demeanors when they disclosed the abuse was also admissible (see People v. Spicola, 16 N.Y.3d 441, 452 n. 2, 922 N.Y.S.2d 846, 947 N.E.2d 620 [2011]).  In any event, any error regarding these issues was harmless (see People v. Rosario, 17 N.Y.3d 501, 515, 934 N.Y.S.2d 59, 958 N.E.2d 93 [2011]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.