PEOPLE v. HIRES (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered August 10, 2022, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly admitted recorded conversations between himself and the complainant's mother is without merit.  These recordings included, among other things, admissions by the defendant that he sexually abused the complainant and were accordingly “admissible under the party admissions exception to the hearsay rule” (People v. McPhillips, 133 A.D.3d 785, 786, 21 N.Y.S.3d 134;  see People v. Chico, 90 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 665 N.Y.S.2d 5, 687 N.E.2d 1288;  People v. Case, 113 A.D.3d 872, 979 N.Y.S.2d 383).  Moreover, the recordings were also properly admitted for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of “complet[ing] the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest” (People v. Armstrong, 210 A.D.3d 900, 900, 176 N.Y.S.3d 797;  see People v. Trantham, 225 A.D.3d 714, 207 N.Y.S.3d 129), and the statements in the recordings by participants other than the defendant were not offered for the truth of their contents but rather to explain the context of the defendant's demeanor and statements (see People v. Kass, 59 A.D.3d 77, 87, 874 N.Y.S.2d 475;  People v. Perez, 9 A.D.3d 376, 377, 779 N.Y.S.2d 584).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly allowed expert testimony without qualifying the witnesses as experts is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Leggio, 237 A.D.3d 856, 232 N.Y.S.3d 521;  People v. Ratliff, 165 A.D.3d 845, 85 N.Y.S.3d 492).  In any event, this contention is without merit.  The witnesses’ testimony concerning their qualifications and experience provided a sufficient foundation for their opinion testimony (see People v. Leggio, 237 A.D.3d at 857, 232 N.Y.S.3d 521;  People v. Ratliff, 165 A.D.3d at 846, 85 N.Y.S.3d 492;  People v. Robinson, 118 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 987 N.Y.S.2d 457;  People v. Washington, 108 A.D.3d 576, 577, 968 N.Y.S.2d 184;  People v. Prowse, 60 A.D.3d 703, 704, 875 N.Y.S.2d 121).  The court was not required to formally declare or certify the witnesses as experts (see People v. Leggio, 237 A.D.3d at 857, 232 N.Y.S.3d 521;  People v. Ratliff, 165 A.D.3d at 846, 85 N.Y.S.3d 492;  People v. Prowse, 60 A.D.3d at 704, 875 N.Y.S.2d 121).

Furthermore, the defendant's contention that the County Court improperly permitted the testimony of an expert witness on the subject of child sexual abuse is without merit.  The testimony was properly admitted to explain, inter alia, delayed disclosure by child victims of sexual abuse (see People v. Garcia, 199 A.D.3d 701, 702, 156 N.Y.S.3d 411;  People v. Shane, 187 A.D.3d 1219, 1220, 131 N.Y.S.3d 227;  People v. Gopaul, 112 A.D.3d 966, 967, 977 N.Y.S.2d 95).  Neither did the expert's testimony bolster or vouch for the complainant ‘s credibility.  The expert testified in general terms and did not suggest that the charged crimes occurred (see People v. Garcia, 199 A.D.3d at 702, 156 N.Y.S.3d 411;  People v. Tebout, 179 A.D.3d 1099, 1101, 114 N.Y.S.3d 679;  People v. Taylor, 165 A.D.3d 707, 709, 84 N.Y.S.3d 262).

The defendant's contention, in effect, that the County Court improperly admitted testimony from an expert witness that the absence of physical findings on an examination of the complainant was not inconsistent with a finding that the complainant was sexually abused is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]).  In any event, this contention is without merit, as such testimony was properly admitted to assist the jury in determining the significance of the absence of physical findings (see People v. Simmons, 93 A.D.3d 739, 739–740, 940 N.Y.S.2d 156;  People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 561, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364).

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly admitted testimony from a forensic science expert because she did not perform the DNA lab testing is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]).  In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v. Bostic, 236 A.D.3d 1051, 230 N.Y.S.3d 365;  People v. Espinosa, 207 A.D.3d 655, 656, 170 N.Y.S.3d 487).  Further, any alleged weaknesses in the expert's testimony went to the credibility and weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility (see People v. Nelson, 186 A.D.3d 1404, 1405–1406, 129 N.Y.S.3d 18;  People v. Morency, 93 A.D.3d 736, 738, 940 N.Y.S.2d 138).

Contrary to the People's contention, however, a proper foundation was not laid for the admission of the complainant's medical report as a business record.  For the medical report to be admissible as a business record and, therefore, as an exception to the hearsay rule, there must be testimony from a person with knowledge of the business's record-keeping procedures that the medical report was prepared contemporaneously to the examination of the complainant, that the medical report was prepared in the regular course of business, and that it was the regular course of business to prepare such a medical report (see CPLR 4518[a];  CPL 60.10;  People v. Cratsley, 86 N.Y.2d 81, 91, 629 N.Y.S.2d 992, 653 N.E.2d 1162).  Here, the testimony of Gillian Hopgood, the medical director of the Suffolk County Child Advocacy Center (hereinafter the CAC), where the complainant was examined, did not establish a proper foundation for the admission of the medical report.  Hopgood, who was not employed by the CAC at the time the examination occurred and did not prepare the medical report, did not provide sufficient testimony concerning the period of time when the report was made and whether it was made in the regular course of the CAC's business at that time (see People v. Cordova, 127 A.D.3d 1227, 9 N.Y.S.3d 90).  The error, however, was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and there is no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v. Dunham, 78 A.D.3d 1073, 1073, 913 N.Y.S.2d 239).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

CONNOLLY, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.