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. Jaime SANCHEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jeffrey Rosenblueth, J.), rendered July 1, 2025, as amended July 8, 2025, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first and second degrees, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court correctly found that the trial testimony of one of the child-victims, S.M., that defendant told her not to tell anyone about his sexual abuse and to “keep it our little secret,” was not inconsistent with her grand jury testimony, in which she did not so testify, where, based on the examination in the grand jury, it was not “most unnatural” for S.M. to omit mention of defendant's veiled threat (see People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 679 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 318 [1980] ). Further, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240–241 [1975] ).
Defendant was not entitled to a mistrial when the doctor who conducted a medical interview of S.M. testified that he had “reach[ed] a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [S.M.] had been abused.” While this was improper opinion testimony, the court's curative instruction adequately addressed the issue. Further, the doctor's testimony regarding his diagnosis of S.M. was admissible (see People v Ortega, 15 NY3d 610, 618–619 [2010]; People v Burke, 293 AD2d 416, 416 [1st Dept 2002] ). In any event, any error was harmless (see Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 241–242).
The People's untimely disclosure of a DD5 recounting A.G.'s mother's statement to the investigating detective that she had had a romantic relationship with defendant was not a Brady violation because the omission was not material and did not “deprive[ ] the defendant of a fair opportunity to ․ conduct an adequate investigation of the facts [A.G.'s mother] recounted to the prosecutor” (People v Roberts, 203 AD2d 600, 602 [2d Dept 1994] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 7093
Decided: September 29, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)