From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Weir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1986
120 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 5, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Broomer, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

No error was committed by the trial court in permitting the prosecutor to elicit from the complainant's brother testimony to the effect that he had robbed a quantity of cocaine from the defendant on the same day that the complainant was kidnapped. Although this testimony implicated the defendant in criminal activity not charged in the indictment, his involvement in drug transactions served to establish a motive for the abduction of the complainant. Because the probative value of such testimony outweighed any potential prejudice, which prejudice was further obviated by the court's limiting instructions, the testimony was properly admitted (see, People v Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 41, 64, cert denied 469 U.S. 1227; People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368; People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293).

Any errors arising out of the cross-examination of the defendant by the prosecutor were not objected to and were thus not preserved for appellate review. In any event, such claims of error are meritless. The alleged "extensive" impeachment of the defendant by eliciting evidence of prior bad acts was in fact quite brief, and the court's participation in such questioning was justified under the circumstances as an exercise of its "vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial" (People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 57). Furthermore, the prosecutor's questions directed to the failure of the defendant to call the police after having been robbed by the complainant's brother were not improper, as these inquiries directly involved the credibility of the defendant's testimony that only money and not drugs had been stolen from him.

Finally, the defendant's contention that the court unfairly marshaled the evidence has no merit. The court properly alluded to the trial testimony only to the extent necessary to explain to the jury the application of the law to the facts of the case (cf. CPL 300.10). Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Weir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1986
120 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Weir

Case Details

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

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

Date published: May 5, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Watson

The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor's cross-examination of her, and comments on summation,…

People v. Mulgrave

In the letter, the victim refers to a murder committed by the defendant of which she had detailed knowledge.…