From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chisholm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 1991
174 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 10, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's allegation that the testimony of a police officer bolstered the complainant's identification testimony in violation of the principles enunciated in People v Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471) is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v West, 56 N.Y.2d 662; People v Moore, 159 A.D.2d 521, 522). In any event, the officer's testimony did not have a bolstering effect because he did not refer to the victim's identification of the defendant (see, People v Moore, supra, at 522).

During the precharge conference, the parties stipulated that the court "need not marshal the evidence". Therefore, the defendant's contention that the court erred by refusing to marshal the evidence is not only unpreserved for appellate review but was expressly waived by him (see, People v Sanchez, 136 A.D.2d 751, 752). In any event, the court's failure to marshal the evidence did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to substitute new counsel in place of his assigned counsel on the eve of trial (see, People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199, 206-207; People v Daniels, 156 A.D.2d 705, 706; People v Taitt, 146 A.D.2d 658). Motions requesting the assignment of new counsel must not be granted casually, but upon good cause shown (see, People v Sawyer, 57 N.Y.2d 12, 18-19, cert denied 459 U.S. 1178; People v Medina, supra, at 207-208; People v Leach, 108 A.D.2d 871, 872). The record reflects that the defendant failed to articulate any reasons for the requested substitution and thus did not demonstrate good cause (see, People v Medina, supra; People v Daniels, supra).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Chisholm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 10, 1991
174 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Chisholm

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DEREK CHISHOLM…

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

People v. Wynn

We find no merit to the defendant's contention that he was unduly prejudiced by police testimony that he was…