Opinion
2015-03-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome THOMPSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Norman P. Effman, Public Defender, Warsaw (Gregory A. Kilburn of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Donald G. O'Geen, District Attorney, Warsaw (Eric R. Schiener of Counsel), for Respondent.
Norman P. Effman, Public Defender, Warsaw (Gregory A. Kilburn of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Donald G. O'Geen, District Attorney, Warsaw (Eric R. Schiener of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25[2] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that there was a reasonable basis articulated on the record to justify County Court's determination to have him handcuffed when he testified before the grand jury ( see People v. Rouse, 79 N.Y.2d 934, 935, 582 N.Y.S.2d 986, 591 N.E.2d 1172; People v. Jacobs, 298 A.D.2d 954, 955, 748 N.Y.S.2d 110, lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 559, 754 N.Y.S.2d 212, 784 N.E.2d 85). Defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Ross, 118 A.D.3d 1413, 1416–1417, 988 N.Y.S.2d 756, lv. denied24 N.Y.3d 964, 996 N.Y.S.2d 223, 20 N.E.3d 1003) and, in any event, is without merit. We agree with defendant that the prosecutor acted improperly by eliciting testimony from defendant on cross-examination that several of the People's witnesses were mistaken ( see People v. Railey, 214 A.D.2d 455, 455, 625 N.Y.S.2d 213, lv. denied86 N.Y.2d 800, 632 N.Y.S.2d 514, 656 N.E.2d 613; People v. Roundtree, 190 A.D.2d 879, 880, 593 N.Y.S.2d 345), calling a rebuttal witness to impeach defendant's credibility with respect to a collateral matter ( see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 288–289, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216; People v. Burns, 122 A.D.3d 1435, 1436, 996 N.Y.S.2d 842), and injecting his own credibility into the trial ( see People v. Paperno, 54 N.Y.2d 294, 300, 445 N.Y.S.2d 119, 429 N.E.2d 797). We conclude, however, that those improprieties were “not so egregious as to deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances of this case” (People v. Martina, 48 A.D.3d 1271, 1273, 852 N.Y.S.2d 527, lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 961, 863 N.Y.S.2d 145, 893 N.E.2d 451 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Gonzalez, 206 A.D.2d 946, 947, 615 N.Y.S.2d 191, lv. denied84 N.Y.2d 867, 618 N.Y.S.2d 13, 642 N.E.2d 332). Indeed, the improper conduct merely highlighted defendant's claim that the incident never occurred and that the entire case against him was fabricated.
Finally, the sentence, although the statutory maximum, is not unduly harsh or severe, particularly in view of defendant's lengthy criminal history and disciplinary record while incarcerated.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.