From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 1990
162 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 25, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 without conducting an evidentiary hearing. In support of the motion, counsel submitted an affirmation asserting that the complaining witness had misrepresented her status as a recipient of public assistance by stating during her direct testimony that she had received assistance for only "a couple of months" when, according to counsel, she had been receiving public assistance for a number of years. Counsel's affirmation, which attributed this information to an individual identified only as a "Mr. Green, Queensbridge Houses", failed to explain why this statement could not have been obtained prior to the rendition of the jury's verdict, and contained no elaboration of precisely how its introduction into evidence would have resulted in a verdict "more favorable to the defendant" (CPL 330.30). In light of the foregoing, and since the "new" material was intended solely to impeach the testimony of the complaining witness with respect to a collateral matter, the court properly denied the motion without a hearing (see, People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, 215-216, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v. Fielder, 154 A.D.2d 388, 389; People v. Johnson, 113 A.D.2d 900; People v. Malave, 104 A.D.2d 828).

The defendant also attributes prejudicial error to certain of the prosecutor's summation remarks and to the court's charge to the jury regarding the resolution of discrepancies in the testimony. Any issues of law with respect to these alleged errors have not been preserved for appellate review in light of the defense counsel's failure to register timely objections at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Grant, 148 A.D.2d 632).

Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive under the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Kooper, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Walden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 1990
162 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Walden

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN WALDEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 25, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 428

Citing Cases

People v. White

ity to utilize the prior testimony during trial. Defendant was found not guilty of the counts of the…

People v. Clinkscaleas

Upon our review of the record, we find it was inadequate to make a reasoned determination as to the existence…