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. Phillip JEAN-LAURENT, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered June 1, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (four counts), 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 trial court erred in permitting an emergency medical technician (hereinafter EMT) to testify as to matters claimed to be beyond her scope of expertise is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 644 N.E.2d 1342; People v. Nelson, 22 A.D.3d 769, 770, 804 N.Y.S.2d 373; People v. Mack, 301 A.D.2d 863, 755 N.Y.S.2d 437; People v. Paun, 269 A.D.2d 546, 703 N.Y.S.2d 256). In any event, the trial court properly determined that the EMT was qualified to render an opinion that the complainant's injuries were caused by two blows from a blunt instrument. “Practical experience may properly substitute for academic training in determining whether an individual has acquired the training necessary to be qualified as an expert” (People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759, 484 N.Y.S.2d 123; see People v. Paun, 269 A.D.2d 546, 703 N.Y.S.2d 256; People v. Rivera, 236 A.D.2d 428, 429, 654 N.Y.S.2d 147; see also Meiselman v. Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 N.Y. 389, 398, 34 N.E.2d 367). Further, the trial court was not required to formally declare or certify the witness to be an expert (see People v. Wagner, 27 A.D.3d 671, 672, 811 N.Y.S.2d 125).
The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-14, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, 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: May 13, 2008
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)