PEOPLE v. CONTRERA (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), rendered August 3, 2022, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree, and rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 20 years plus 15 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of rape in first degree, 7 years plus 10 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, 7 years plus 10 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree, and 4 years plus 10 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of rape in the third degree.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed on the conviction of rape in the first degree from a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years plus 15 years of postrelease supervision to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years plus 15 years of postrelease supervision;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

For his actions pertaining to the complainant's forced participation in sexual acts, the jury convicted the defendant of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[1]) and related crimes.  In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).  The complainant testified that the defendant had held her down, that she tried to remove his hands from her person, and that she feared that the defendant would kill not only her, but her mother and siblings, if she did not submit to his demands.  Contrary to the defendant's contention, neither the lack of evidence of physical injury, nor the complainant's alleged failure to attempt an escape or to immediately report the crimes, renders the verdict in this matter against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Soto, 155 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 64 N.Y.S.3d 33;  People v. Warren, 22 A.D.3d 773, 774–775, 804 N.Y.S.2d 376).

The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to present a defense because the County Court did not allow him to present evidence that his then–11–year–old son, who is also the complainant's half-brother, had been asked to lie about the defendant by the complainant's mother and grandmother.  The defendant contends that this evidence relates to the complainant's credibility and motive to fabricate her accusations against the defendant.  However, since the defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence at trial, his constitutional claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Stephens, 84 N.Y.2d 990, 992, 622 N.Y.S.2d 502, 646 N.E.2d 804;  People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618).  In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request, as the proffered evidence lacked a good-faith factual basis, was based solely on hearsay, and was too remote and speculative (see People v. Wilson, 163 A.D.3d 881, 882, 81 N.Y.S.3d 163;  People v. Monroe, 30 A.D.3d 616, 617, 817 N.Y.S.2d 150).

The defendant's contention that the County Court denied the defense a fair opportunity to question prospective jurors by limiting counsel's voir dire during jury selection is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Blackwell, 219 A.D.3d 619, 620, 195 N.Y.S.3d 47).  In any event, “[a] trial court has broad discretion to restrict the scope of voir dire by counsel and indeed must preclude repetitive or irrelevant questioning” (People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744, 745, 551 N.Y.S.2d 889, 551 N.E.2d 90 [citations omitted];  see People v. Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135, 140, 324 N.Y.S.2d 30, 272 N.E.2d 538).  Here, the record demonstrates that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting defense counsel's questioning during voir dire (see People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d at 745, 551 N.Y.S.2d 889, 551 N.E.2d 90;  People v. Littlejohn, 92 A.D.3d 898, 898–899, 939 N.Y.S.2d 118;  People v. Forino, 65 A.D.3d 1259, 1261, 887 N.Y.S.2d 114).

Moreover, the County Court did not err in permitting photographs of the defendant's genitalia to be admitted into evidence at trial, as the complainant's opportunity to observe the defendant's penis was a material issue in the case and the photographs were never shown to the complainant (see People v. Wood, 79 N.Y.2d 958, 960, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992, 591 N.E.2d 1178;  People v. Wells, 161 A.D.3d 1200, 1200, 77 N.Y.S.3d 668;  People v. Morin, 146 A.D.3d 901, 902, 45 N.Y.S.3d 512).

The defendant's contention that an expanded jury charge on intent should have been provided by the County Court is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. James, 35 A.D.3d 762, 763, 825 N.Y.S.2d 776).  In any event, the contention is without merit, as the court's charge, when viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard to be applied in determining whether the defendant acted with the necessary mens rea (see People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303, 316–317, 598 N.Y.S.2d 167, 614 N.E.2d 730;  People v. Yanik, 43 N.Y.2d 97, 400 N.Y.S.2d 778, 371 N.E.2d 497).

The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Brisman, 43 N.Y.3d 322, 235 N.Y.S.3d 248, 262 N.E.3d 249;  People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.