From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Drummond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 3, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ivan Warner, J.).


Defendant's argument that he was denied a fair trial due to the People's failure to give him CPL 710.30 (1) notice of their intention to offer his alibi statement is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). In any case, CPL 710.30 (1) is inapplicable since the statement was not offered as part of the People's direct case, but elicited on redirect examination of the detective after defendant had opened the door to further inquiry regarding the statement (see, People v Harris, 25 N.Y.2d 175, affd 401 U.S. 222).

Defendant's argument that the court improperly permitted a six-year old child to testify as an unsworn witness is unpreserved (CPL 470.05). In any case, the record of the court's voir dire of the witness does not demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in concluding that the child had the requisite intelligence and capacity to testify at trial (CPL 60.20; see, People v Rivers, 149 A.D.2d 544, 545). Furthermore, there is no merit to defendant's unpreserved argument that the testimony of the unsworn witness was impermissibly bolstered by the prosecutor's inquiry of that witness and the testimony of two detectives.

Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to the failure of his trial counsel to request an instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree (see, People v Rivera, 166 A.D.2d 367, 368, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 842). The charge was not warranted since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant recklessly killed his mother, and, in any event, it cannot be concluded that counsel's failure to request the charge was not a tactical decision (People v Vargas, 150 A.D.2d 513, 514, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 853).

Finally, we reject defendant's argument that his right to be present at all material stages of the trial was violated when several conferences with sworn jurors addressing matters that could lead to their disqualification were conducted in his absence (People v Grant, 178 A.D.2d 283, 284, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 920; see also, People v Torres, 80 N.Y.2d 944).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Drummond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 1992
188 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Drummond

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WAYNE DRUMMOND…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

People v. Wolz

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…

People v. MC Cullough

In a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, the other two eyewitnesses alleged that they had…