Opinion
No. KA 06-00783.
February 1, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered November 10, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of bribing a witness (two counts) and tampering with a witness in the third degree.
DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MATTHEW J. MURPHY, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Before: Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of one count of tampering with a witness in the third degree (Penal Law § 215.11) and two counts of bribing a witness (§ 215.00 [a], [b]). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of a defense witness on a collateral issue ( see generally People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction of bribing a witness under count six of the indictment ( see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), and defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of tampering with a witness ( see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). The verdict on those counts is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.