People v. Gines

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2024

Decision Date: 6/11/1975

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2024 (1975)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1975

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 94 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.86

N.Y.4

N.Y. Sup. Ct.2

N.Y. Crim. Ct.1

S.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2024People v. Davis N.Y. App. Div.
2014People v. Cedeno N.Y. App. Div.
2013People v. Morris N.Y.
2010People v. Hinson N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Mobley N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Banks N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Singletary N.Y. App. Div.
2008People v. MacLean N.Y. App. Div.
2008People v. Leeson N.Y. App. Div.
2008People v. Godbold N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Luis Gines, Appellant.

Attorneys

Sara Halbert and Abraham Abramovsky for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Karen Zelfman Bell of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. After accosting the complainant in the hallway on the fourth floor of her apartment house, defendant dragged her at knife point to the roof where he proceeded to rob her. Over objection to the entire line of questioning, the complainant was then allowed to testify further that defendant had raped her incident to and immediately following the robbery. Such testimony was admissible to complete the narrative of the episode and to establish the complainant’s opportunity to identify defendant as her assailant (People v Acevedo, 32 NY2d 941).

Additionally, if as the dissent contends, the complainant’s testimony here was amplified with lurid particularity concerning the details of the rape to an extent that may have exceeded normal bounds for legitimate purposes of narrative and identification, the issue is not preserved for our review. The only objection was made at the outset and then to any testimony at all with respect to the rape. No objection was made, separate and apart therefrom, that the prosecutor was eliciting inadmissible detail in his interrogation of the witness.