From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1996
224 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.).


The trial court's in limine ruling that it would permit, with a limiting instruction, cross-examination of defendant regarding three prior arrests, without elicitation of the underlying facts, as probative of defendant's false statements made to the Grand Jury, wherein he had volunteered that he had no prior arrests, was an appropriate exercise of discretion ( see, Matter of Levar M., 206 A.D.2d 310).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, defendant's guilt of each and every element of the crimes charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). An independent review of the evidence confirms that the jury accorded appropriate weight to the credible evidence ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Indeed, the People presented overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

The trial court properly denied defendant's application to admit into evidence a facsimile of a ring allegedly habitually worn by defendant because defendant's offer of proof failed to show that such a ring was connected to the crime, or even had been worn by defendant at the time in question ( see, People v Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453-454; see also, People v. Capella, 111 A.D.2d 179, 180-181).

The trial court properly denied defendant's request for an interested witness charge regarding one of the eyewitnesses, as no factual basis existed for such charge ( see, People v Alvarado, 140 A.D.2d 446, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 915). Defendant did not preserve by appropriate objection his current claim that the court's issuance of an interested witness charge regarding defendant's common-law wife unfairly marshaled the evidence (CPL 470.05). In any event, the trial court's jury instructions that interest or bias might be considered in connection with the testimony of any witness, and that the defendant's common-law wife was an interested witness whose interest in the outcome of the case was merely a factor that might be considered in evaluation of any portion of her testimony, conveyed the appropriate legal principles ( see, People v. Agosto, 73 N.Y.2d 963, 967).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 8, 1996
224 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Roman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE ROMAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 5