People v. Lewis

3 Citing cases

  1. Singh v. Greene

    No. 10-CV-4444 (JFB) (E.D.N.Y. May. 20, 2011)   Cited 9 times

    Statements about the general nature of possible testimony are insufficient to forestall the application of the preservation doctrine where they do not describe the testimony to be admitted and how the proposed testifying witness arrived at conclusions he would present to the jury. See, e.g., People v. Lewis, 562 N.Y.S.2d 47, 48 (App. Div. 1990) ("On appeal, defendant contends that he was deprived of an opportunity to call a material witness to challenge the People's proof as to the depth of the wound. On the basis of the offer of proof, which only claimed that the witness would testify that the wound was not deliberate and did not specify how the witness reached that conclusion, we find this claim to be unpreserved for review as a matter of law.

  2. People v. Chesson

    303 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in precluding him from introducing extrinsic evidence of the complainant's bias, interest, and hostility is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Inniss, 83 N.Y.2d 653; People v. Munoz, 291 A.D.2d 287; People v. Lewis, 167 A.D.2d 303). In any event, the trial court correctly precluded a defense witness from testifying about collateral matters intended merely to impeach the complainant's credibility (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Ferere, 294 A.D.2d 596; People v. Abreu, 278 A.D.2d 424).

  3. People v. Butler

    185 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 18 times

    At several points in his remarks, the prosecutor told the jurors that defendant should be considered guilty if they believed the testimony of any one of the People's witnesses, including the Associate Medical Examiner (to which counsel raised no objection) and reminded them that defendant has "the greatest motive to lie" (objection sustained) and "realizing this would be the second felony conviction, his bias is overwhelming" (objection overruled). None of the objections by defense counsel was accompanied by a motion for a mistrial or a request for curative instructions (People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v. Lewis, 167 A.D.2d 303, 304, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 908). However, the prosecutor's conduct, during trial and on summation, "was improper and prejudicial to defendant" (People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 280) and "violated the prosecutor's obligation to seek justice, rather than conviction (see Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 7-13)" (59 N.Y.2d, supra, at 280-281).