From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Baez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 29, 2002
290 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

63

January 29, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J. on dismissal motion; Bruce Allen, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 5, 1997, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years and 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

ANNICA H. JIN, for respondent.

JENNIFER L. CHAPIN, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow, JJ.


Defendant's claim that the court should have dismissed the indictment on the ground that he had been deprived of his right to testify before the Grand Jury was affirmatively waived when defendant, through counsel (see, People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 390) withdrew the motion to dismiss, leaving nothing for the court to decide. Defendant expressly withdrew the motion itself, and not merely his request to testify before the Grand Jury (compare, People v. Mason, 176 A.D.2d 356, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 921).

The court properly modified its Sandoval ruling to permit inquiry into defendant's prior arrests after defendant's direct testimony left the mistaken impression with the jury that he had no history of selling drugs (see, People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638; People v. Clark, 272 A.D.2d 197,lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 851). Similarly, defendant's direct testimony concerning his success at passing through a metal detector at a dance club earlier in the evening of the incident also opened the door to questioning about the box cutter recovered from him at the time of his arrest.

Although the prosecutor's questioning of defendant's character witness in a manner that assumed defendant's guilt of the instant charges was improper (see, People v. Pryor, 70 A.D.2d 805), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Baez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 29, 2002
290 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Baez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM BAEZ…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 29, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 338

Citing Cases

People v. Stuyvesant

While defendant claims that his appeal has been unduly delayed, any such delay is attributable to his own…

People v. Reddick

We see no basis to disturb the jury's determination of credibility. To the extent that defendant contends…