From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Leitzsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1991
173 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 6, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion by permitting the complainant to testify that the defendant threatened him in an attempt to induce him to drop the charges and that the defendant stated that he had previously "[done something] to the people where they dropped the charges". This evidence was probative of the defendant's consciousness of guilt (see, People v Whaley, 144 A.D.2d 510; People v Griffin, 126 A.D.2d 743). While the defendant argues that the trial court should have issued a limiting instruction to the jury that it should only consider the evidence on the issue of the defendant's consciousness of guilt, his failure to request such an instruction renders his argument unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bowen, 50 N.Y.2d 915, 917; People v Hentley, 155 A.D.2d 392, 394; People v Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752, 752-753).

Although the trial court erred in permitting the complainant to testify as to his conversation with the defendant's attorney (see, Richardson, Evidence § 200 [Prince 10th ed]), in view of the isolated nature of this hearsay evidence, as well as the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v Polizzi, 150 A.D.2d 616, 617).

In light of the defendant's criminal history, the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's attempt to hide his culpability, and the Probation Department's determination that there was little likelihood for rehabilitation, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Leitzsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1991
173 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Leitzsey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ELDRED LEITZSEY…

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

Date published: May 6, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
570 N.Y.S.2d 109

Citing Cases

People v. Standsblack

h as he failed to object to any of them (see People v. Jemes, 132 A.D.3d 1361, 1363, 17 N.Y.S.3d 539 [4th…

People v. Smith

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the admission of testimony…