NY appeals court upholds Herkimer County sex abuse, rape verdict

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has dismissed multiple arguments and affirmed convictions on sex abuse, rape, and other charges in a Herkimer County Court case.

Defendant Anthony R. Bonanza was convicted before Herkimer County Court Judge John H. Crandall in November 2022 of first-degree sexual abuse, first-degree criminal sexual act, first-degree rape and endangering the welfare of a child.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, recently affirmed the verdict.

Bonanza’s appellate attorney, Morgan Namian, argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish guilt and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

“We reject those contentions,” the court wrote. “We conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crimes proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“We conclude that, even if a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded,” the panel wrote.

Namian argued that the victim’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law, but the Fourth Department found that issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are questions to be determined by the jury.

Namian also argued that Bonanza was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of some expert testimony.

The prosecutor disclosed to the defense the names of two experts and the report from the victim’s medical examination, which showed that the victim had a healed laceration in her hymen. But the prosecution failed to turn over to the defense the curricula vitae and proficiency tests of those experts.

After the defense objected, Crandall precluded one expert from testifying and ruled that the second expert, who actually conducted the medical examination, could provide only limited testimony.

But after Bonanza’s trial attorney stated in their opening statement that the victim had been medically examined and that there was no indication of trauma, Crandall ruled that the second expert could give testimony regarding the examination.

Namian argued that Crandall abused his discretion by not precluding the testimony of the second expert and the prosecution offered testimony of the expert that was in violation of the court’s ruling limiting her testimony.

“We reject that contention inasmuch as defendant ignores the fact that he initially benefitted from a favorable ruling barring introduction of the testimony regarding the examination, and then sought to use that ruling to his advantage, by mischaracterizing the victim’s medical examination,” the court wrote.

“The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035