People v. Abdur-Rahman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abdur-Rahman

69 A.D.3d 951, 893 N.Y.2d 610

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 951 (People v. Abdur-Rahman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Abdur-Rahman, 69 A.D.3d 951, 893 N.Y.2d 610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court improperly admitted into evidence a photograph of the victim taken when he was alive, since this evidence was not relevant to any material fact to be proved at trial (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835 [1990]; People v Mills, 48 AD3d 703 [2008]; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d 852, 854 [2006]; People v Rodriguez, 1 AD3d 386, 387 [2003]; People v Kershaw, 238 AD2d 523 [1997]). However, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808 [2003]; People v Santiago, 255 AD2d 63 [1999]), and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Mills, 48 AD3d 703 [2008]; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d 852 [2006]; People v Foss, 267 AD2d 505, 508 [1999]).

As the People also correctly concede, it was improper for the trial court to permit the People to impeach their own witness whose testimony did not tend to disprove a material issue of the case (see CPL 60.35; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44 [1976]). However, that error too was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Murillo, 256 AD2d 423, 424 [1998]; People v Comer, 146 AD2d 794, 795 [1989]; People v Pellot, 186 AD2d 158, 158 [1992]). Santucci, J.P, Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court improperly admitted into evidence a photograph of the victim taken when he was alive, since this evidence was not relevant to any material fact to be proved at trial (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835 [1990]; People v Mills, 48 AD3d 703 [2008]; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d 852, 854 [2006]; People v Rodriguez, 1 AD3d 386, 387 [2003]; People v Kershaw, 238 AD2d 523 [1997]). However, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808 [2003]; People v Santiago, 255 AD2d 63 [1999]), and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Mills, 48 AD3d 703 [2008]; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d 852 [2006]; People v Foss, 267 AD2d 505, 508 [1999]).

As the People also correctly concede, it was improper for the trial court to permit the People to impeach their own witness whose testimony did not tend to disprove a material issue of the case (see CPL 60.35; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44 [1976]). However, that error too was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Murillo, 256 AD2d 423, 424 [1998]; People v Comer, 146 AD2d 794, 795 [1989]; People v Pellot, 186 AD2d 158, 158 [1992]). Santucci, J.P, Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 951, 893 N.Y.2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abdur-rahman-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack