From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 1995
213 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 30, 1995

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


The hearing court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application to call the complainant at the Wade hearing, without prejudice to a motion to reopen, on the ground that defendant's claims of suggestiveness were purely speculative (People v. Taylor, 80 N.Y.2d 1, 15).

Defendant's claim that he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of his trial is not supported by the record. There is no indication that defendant's position at the defense table prevented him from hearing his counsel and the prosecutor consent, at sidebar, to the discharge of a venireperson who indicated that he knew defendant's wife (a witness at trial), or that defendant was prevented from conferring with his counsel throughout the jury voir dire (People v. Walker, 202 A.D.2d 312, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 972). Further, the record belies defendant's claim that he was not present at the Sandoval hearing. Although some preliminary discussion regarding the court's anticipated Sandoval ruling was conducted off the record, thereafter a full Sandoval hearing was conducted, on the record and in defendant's presence.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application for a mistrial on the ground that police testimony, indicating that the investigation in this case included two lineups and the ultimate arrest of defendant, improperly bolstered the identification testimony of the complainant. Such testimony did not constitute improper bolstering because it did not include a statement that the witness made an out-of-court identification (People v. Forbes, 161 A.D.2d 485, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 856). To the extent the testimony in question may have constituted inferential bolstering, it must be considered harmless error in light of the exceptionally strong identification testimony of the complainant and the improbability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the admission of the challenged testimony (supra).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 30, 1995
213 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Swift

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ISLAM SWIFT, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 30, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 423

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

BUCKLEY, J. (dissenting in part). Rather than remanding for a new trial, I would remand for a reconstruction…

People v. Washington

Significantly, the defendant left the courtroom of his own volition, so as to prevent the complainant from…