From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 12, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that the prosecutor was improperly permitted, over defense counsel's objection, to elicit from the investigating detective that the defendant and his codefendant had been arrested on an unspecified charge in Manhattan (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; see also, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Harris, 150 A.D.2d 723). Contrary to the People's contention, such testimony was not admissible on the ground that defense counsel had "opened the door" to the issue during cross-examination of the detective (see, People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; see also, People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111; People v. McElveen, 162 A.D.2d 626).

However, given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error was harmless (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242). The defendant was known to both complainants before the night in question, since he had been the boyfriend of one of their coworkers and had been present on numerous occasions in the restaurant in which the instant incident occurred. In addition, the defendant's fingerprint was found at the scene on one of the cups which the attackers had strewn about after the restaurant had been cleaned and closed for the night.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion by refusing to admit the proffered testimony of the police informant's sister concerning the informant's purported jealousy over a third sister's relationship with the defendant. This testimony was not probative of any issues in the case (see, People v. Tolbert, 169 A.D.2d 584; People v. Pike, 131 A.D.2d 890, 891).

Having failed to request a charge on identification or to object to the court's failure to deliver such a charge, the defendant's claim on this point is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. James

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAPHAEL JAMES…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 47

Citing Cases

Ross v. New York

Therefore, the trial court properly precluded Sawyer's testimony because such testimony was wholly immaterial…

People v. Bossett

05; People v Shankle, 37 AD3d 742, 743; People v Saunders, 306 AD2d 502, 502-503; People v Velez, 222 AD2d…