From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 17, 1992
185 A.D.2d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

August 17, 1992

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


Ordered that the judgment be affirmed.

As part of the People's case-in-chief, two police officers testified that as a result of a "conversation" with the defendant's stepdaughter and her boyfriend, the officers, along with the stepdaughter and boyfriend, searched for and found the defendant, who was carrying a gun in his waistband. The stepdaughter and her boyfriend then testified on direct examination, as witnesses for the defense, that they were present in the police car when the defendant, driving a car that he did not own, was pulled over and arrested, but that the officers found the gun in the car, not on the defendant's person. The trial court thus properly ruled that the defendant opened the door for the cross-examination testimony that was elicited by the People, i.e., that these individuals had previously told the police officers that the defendant had a gun. These prior statements to the police officers were directly probative of whether the defendant knowingly possessed the gun and served to complete the police officers' narrative of the episode (see, People v. Knight, 80 N.Y.2d 845; People v. Bowden, 157 A.D.2d 789, 790; People v. Love, 92 A.D.2d 551, 553; People v. Roman, 171 A.D.2d 562, 563).

We also conclude that the police officers' testimony on rebuttal was properly admitted in this case. Although a witness may not be impeached with extrinsic evidence on a collateral issue, we find that the conversations at issue, to the extent they were evidence that the defendant possessed a gun and pointed it at the defense witnesses' heads, were not collateral, but relevant to disprove the defendant's contention that the gun was found in the car rather than on his person (see, People v. Cade, 73 N.Y.2d 904; People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245; People v Arcarola, 134 A.D.2d 435; People v. Knight, 173 A.D.2d 736, supra).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 17, 1992
185 A.D.2d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LUIS RODRIGUEZ…

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

Date published: Aug 17, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
587 N.Y.S.2d 6

Citing Cases

People v. Wiemeier

Finally, in view of a new trial, we observe that County Court did not err in permitting William Schreiber,…