People v. Chestnut

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Whaul

    63 A.D.3d 1182 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 11 times

    Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). "Defense counsel prepared and pursued trial strategies and defense theories, presented a clear and cogent summation, and adequately cross-examined the People's witnesses to develop his defense theories" ( People v Dashosh, 59 AD3d 731, 732; see People v Constas, 59 AD3d 729, 730; People v Adams, 12 AD3d 523). Although the Supreme Court erred in precluding cross-examination of one of the eyewitnesses regarding certain prior misconduct which was relevant to his general credibility ( see People v Chestnut, 237 AD2d 528; People v Jones, 193 AD2d 696, 697; People v Phifer, 177 AD2d 518; People v Blanchard, 150 AD2d 705, 705-706; People v Robinson, 133 AD2d 859, 861; People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890, 891; People v Watson, 111 AD2d 888), this error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction ( see People v Allen, 50 NY2d 898, 899; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Chestnut, 237 AD2d 528, 528; People v Blanchard, 150 AD2d 705, 705-706; People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890, 891).

  2. People v. Griffin

    No. 2022-01698 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 11, 2022)

    .2d 845 [1996]; People v Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 859, 861 [2d Dept 1987]; cf. People v Corby, 6 N.Y.3d 231, 235-236 [2005]; People v Burton, 286 A.D.2d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 679 [2001]). Nonetheless, we conclude that any error in admitting the challenged testimony, i.e., the police detective testimony regarding the surveillance video and the witness testimony describing the photo array identification, or in limiting the cross-examination of a witness, is harmless in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and because there was no significant probability that the court's error with respect to any of that testimony contributed to the conviction (see People v Harlow, 195 A.D.3d 1505, 1508 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1027 [2021]; People v Flowers, 95 A.D.3d 1233, 1234 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1025 [2012]; People v Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528, 528 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 856 [1997]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25 (1), and it must therefore be amended to reflect that defendant was convicted under Penal Law § 125.

  3. People v. Griffin

    203 A.D.3d 1608 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 11 times

    Corby , 6 N.Y.3d 231, 235-236, 811 N.Y.S.2d 613, 844 N.E.2d 1135 [2005] ; People v. Burton , 286 A.D.2d 772, 773, 730 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2d Dept. 2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 679, 738 N.Y.S.2d 294, 764 N.E.2d 398 [2001] ). Nonetheless, we conclude that any error in admitting the challenged testimony, i.e., the police detective testimony regarding the surveillance video and the witness testimony describing the photo array identification, or in limiting the cross-examination of a witness, is harmless in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and because there was no significant probability that the court's error with respect to any of that testimony contributed to the conviction (seePeople v. Harlow , 195 A.D.3d 1505, 1508, 148 N.Y.S.3d 593 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1027, 153 N.Y.S.3d 422, 175 N.E.3d 447 [2021] ; People v. Flowers , 95 A.D.3d 1233, 1234, 945 N.Y.S.2d 701 [2d Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1025, 953 N.Y.S.2d 558, 978 N.E.2d 110 [2012] ; People v. Chestnut , 237 A.D.2d 528, 528, 656 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2d Dept. 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 856, 661 N.Y.S.2d 183, 683 N.E.2d 1057 [1997] ; see generallyPeople v. Crimmins , 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ). Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25 (1), and it must therefore be amended to reflect that defendant was convicted under Penal Law § 125.

  4. People v. Dorn

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront the prosecution's witnesses against him because certain of the court's rulings limited his cross-examination of the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramsundar, 138 AD3d 892; People v Simmons, 106 AD3d 1115, 1116). In any event, any error in connection with the scope of cross-examination was harmless (see People v Allen, 50 NY2d 898, 899; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Chestnut, 237 AD2d 528; People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890, 892-893). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

  5. People v. Dorn

    140 A.D.3d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront the prosecution's witnesses against him because certain of the court's rulings limited his cross-examination of the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Ramsundar, 138 A.D.3d 892, 30 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ). In any event, any error in connection with the scope of cross-examination was harmless (see People v. Allen, 50 N.Y.2d 898, 899, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588, 408 N.E.2d 917 ; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; People v. Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528, 656 N.Y.S.2d 903 ; People v. Batista, 113 A.D.2d 890, 892–893, 493 N.Y.S.2d 608 ).The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

  6. The People v. Baranek

    287 A.D.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 27 times

    Although the defense was permitted to elicit testimony that the complainant had a case worker assigned to her from Adult Protective Services at the time of the incident and saw a therapist "from time to time", no testimony was elicited regarding the nature of her psychiatric condition. The severe restrictions placed by the trial court on the complainant's cross-examination prevented the defense from presenting its theory of the case to the jury (cf., People v. Sobers, 272 A.D.2d 418; People v. Simmons, 237 A.D.2d 313, 314, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1100, cert denied 121 SCt 1614; People v. Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528). IV

  7. People v. Sobers [2d Dept 2000

    272 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    to the crime charged does not automatically shield the defendant from cross-examination as to the prior convictions (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275; People v. Thomas, 221 A.D.2d 388). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the court engaged in a proper balancing between the probative value of the prior convictions and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Sandoval, supra, at 376; People v. Jamison, 228 A.D.2d 698). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination by the defense counsel (see, People v. Roussopoulos, 261 A.D.2d 559; People v. McEachern, 237 A.D.2d 381; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238). In any event, to the extent that any of the challenged rulings may have been erroneous, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because, notwithstanding the court's rulings, the defense counsel realized his goal of placing the defendant's theory of the case before the jury (see, People v. Simmons, 237 A.D.2d 313, 314; People v. Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780, 781-782; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

  8. People v. Griffin

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1698 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    .2d 845 [1996]; People v Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 859, 861 [2d Dept 1987]; cf. People v Corby, 6 N.Y.3d 231, 235-236 [2005]; People v Burton, 286 A.D.2d 772, 773 [2d Dept 2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 679 [2001]). Nonetheless, we conclude that any error in admitting the challenged testimony, i.e., the police detective testimony regarding the surveillance video and the witness testimony describing the photo array identification, or in limiting the cross-examination of a witness, is harmless in light of the otherwise overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt and because there was no significant probability that the court's error with respect to any of that testimony contributed to the conviction (see People v Harlow, 195 A.D.3d 1505, 1508 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1027 [2021]; People v Flowers, 95 A.D.3d 1233, 1234 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 1025 [2012]; People v Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528, 528 [2d Dept 1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 856 [1997]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree under Penal Law § 125.25 (1), and it must therefore be amended to reflect that defendant was convicted under Penal Law § 125.