From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 9, 1998

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ahmed, 243 A.D.2d 482; People v. Davis, 229 A.D.2d 969). In any event, 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

In response to a note from the jury inquiring whether the jurors could consider comments "blurted out" by the defendant during the trial, the court gave a definition of testimonial evidence. Contrary to the defendant's contention, this did not constitute an impermissible comment on the defendant's constitutional right to remain silent and did not draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify ( see, People v. Staley, 182 A.D.2d 846; People v. Wilson, 162 A.D.2d 747; People v. Kimbrough, 134 A.D.2d 618).

Finally, we find no merit to the defendant's claim that reversible error took place when the court precluded him from introducing evidence suggesting that someone other than he had motive to harm the victim. Although due process requires that a defendant in a criminal case be permitted to call witnesses in his own behalf and to introduce evidence that a person other than he committed the crimes charged ( see, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284), it is well settled that "`"such evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime; there must be a clear link between the third party and the crime in question"'" ( People v. Sparman, 202 A.D.2d 452, 453; see, People v. Brown, 187 A.D.2d 662, 663; People v. Zanfordino, 157 A.D.2d 682). The evidence here was properly precluded ( see, People v. Aulet, 111 A.D.2d 822, 825).

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Griffin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN GRIFFIN, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 344

Citing Cases

People v. Primo

While a defendant has a right to introduce evidence that a person other than himself committed the crime…

People v. Griffin

July 19, 1999 Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…