From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Yonamine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 1993
192 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 19, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.

The trial court has great latitude in limiting the scope and duration of counsel's opening statements (cf., People v Brown, 136 A.D.2d 1, 16, cert denied 488 U.S. 897) and, in this case, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court followed the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v Ventimiglia ( 52 N.Y.2d 350, 362) in determining the admissibility of prior uncharged crimes.

The defendant's right to be present during the impaneling of the jury was not violated by his absence from a conference in chambers during which counsel advised the court of their peremptory challenges and challenges for cause (see, People v Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469). The record reveals that, as in Velasco, the voir dire and the removal of the jurors from the panel were conducted in open court. Moreover, the defendant does not contend that he was absent during these proceedings.

Finally, trial counsel proceeded as effectively as possible in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. He made appropriate pretrial motions and obtained pretrial hearings. At trial, he vigorously cross-examined the People's witnesses, raised appropriate objections, made appropriate motions, delivered opening and closing statements which were consistent with his extreme emotional disturbance defense, and presented an expert witness on the defendant's behalf. In sum, the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v Konits, 159 A.D.2d 590, 591, cert denied 498 U.S. 939; People v Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 798).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Yonamine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 1993
192 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Yonamine

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MASAO YONAMINE…

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

Date published: Apr 19, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
597 N.Y.S.2d 102

Citing Cases

People v. Tolbert

We reject the defendant's contention that he was excluded from a material stage of the trial when counsel…