From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PEOPLE v. FOLK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1988
145 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

December 12, 1988

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Police officers responding to a report of a burglary in progress at a bodega apprehended the defendant inside the premises. The defendant's accomplice was apprehended as he tried to exit through a broken window. The accomplice pleaded guilty to burglary and testified against the defendant while awaiting sentence. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in sustaining the People's objection to a question on cross-examination of the accomplice. We disagree.

As a general proposition, a defendant is entitled to show the hostility of any witness who testifies against him (see, People v Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891). Exclusion of all such evidence is, therefore, error (see, People v McDowell, 9 N.Y.2d 12, 15). However, "[t]he extent to which an examination may go for the purpose of proving the hostility of a witness must be, to some extent, at least, within the discretion of the trial judge" (People v Brooks, 131 N.Y. 321, 326). In the case at bar, the trial court permitted questioning to elicit facts establishing that the accomplice had pleaded guilty to the crimes charged and that because of his testimony he hoped to receive a recommendation of leniency from the Assistant District Attorney at the time of his sentencing. The trial court's limitation of further questioning in this area, particularly in view of the lack of any good-faith basis for the prohibited question, was not an abuse of discretion.

We also reject the defendant's claim on appeal that he was denied his right to effective representation by the trial court's refusal to grant his assigned counsel's request to be relieved because he and the defendant had had an argument. Since there is no indication in this record that the defendant was dissatisfied with his counsel, the court's denial of counsel's motion was proper (cf., People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199). Mollen, P.J., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

PEOPLE v. FOLK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1988
145 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

PEOPLE v. FOLK

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TERRANCE FOLK, True…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 1988

Citations

145 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Torres

On this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court improperly limited his counsel's examination of a…

People v. Sutherland

"Extrinsic proof tending to establish a reason to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on…