Opinion
2014-04-17
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Floyd TOWNSEND, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Cheryl Andrada of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Cheryl Andrada of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered July 11, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of 6 1/2 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination of police witnesses concerning overtime pay and arrest quotas, allegedly demonstrating a motive to lie. Defense counsel was unable to articulate a good faith, nonspeculative basis for his questions ( see People v. McKnight, 144 A.D.2d 702, 535 N.Y.S.2d 21 [2d Dept.1988],lv. denied73 N.Y.2d 974, 539 N.Y.S.2d 308, 536 N.E.2d 637 [1989];see also People v. Torres, 289 A.D.2d 136, 136–137, 734 N.Y.S.2d 174 [1st Dept.2001],lv. denied97 N.Y.2d 762, 742 N.Y.S.2d 623, 769 N.E.2d 369 [2002] ). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, that claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678–679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).
Defendant did not preserve his claim that, before accepting the verdict, the court should have conducted an inquiry into whether the jury rushed to reach a verdict to avoid having to return to court and resume deliberations several days later, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. There is no reason to believe that the jury's verdict, confirmed by polling, was coerced or tainted in any way ( see People v. Marshall, 106 A.D.3d 1, 10, 961 N.Y.S.2d 447 [1st Dept.2013],lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1006, 971 N.Y.S.2d 258, 993 N.E.2d 1280 [2013];People v. Morency, 93 A.D.3d 736, 738, 940 N.Y.S.2d 138 [2d Dept.2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 934, 957 N.Y.S.2d 694, 981 N.E.2d 291 [2012] ), and there was nothing to warrant a sua sponte inquiry. FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, GISCHE, CLARK, JJ., concur.