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, etc., respondent, v. Kerry KOTLER, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered October 23, 1997, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of rape in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ). Although the victim was unable to identify the defendant as the rapist, DNA testing of medical evidence collected from a rape kit and of a skirt worn by the victim on the night of the attack established the presence of the defendant's semen on the victim's skirt and on vaginal swabs taken from the victim. The defendant's theory that the police planted the evidence by taking a condom from the defendant's garbage and spilling his semen onto the victim's clothing was heard and rejected by the jury. We find no basis to disturb the jury verdict.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in only giving an adverse inference charge with respect to the People's destruction of certain Rosario material and loss of other Rosario material (see People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134; People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64). The form of the charge given was proper as well.
The defendant's contention relating to the composition of the jury panel is unpreserved for appellate review, and his remaining contentions are without merit.
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.
Decided: July 25, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
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)