People v. Alston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alston

158 A.D.2d 607, 551 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1967

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 607 (People v. Alston) 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. Alston, 158 A.D.2d 607, 551 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

As argued by the defendant and conceded by the People, the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor, over the defendant’s objection, to impeach one of his own witnesses in violation of CPL 60.35 (see, People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44; People v Knatz, 76 AD2d 889). Moreover, we agree with the defendant’s further contention that the prosecutor was improperly permitted, over the defendant’s objection, to attack his credibility by recalling a witness, on rebuttal, who merely repeated certain testimony he had given on the People’s direct case (see, People v McRoy, 121 AD2d 566, 569; cf., People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047).

However, we find that these errors, even considered cumulatively, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt since the improperly allowed testimony did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and there was strong independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v McRoy, supra; see also, People v Saez, 69 NY2d 802; People v Brown, 126 AD2d 657; People v Mathure, 111 AD2d 876).

We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

As argued by the defendant and conceded by the People, the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor, over the defendant’s objection, to impeach one of his own witnesses in violation of CPL 60.35 (see, People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44; People v Knatz, 76 AD2d 889). Moreover, we agree with the defendant’s further contention that the prosecutor was improperly permitted, over the defendant’s objection, to attack his credibility by recalling a witness, on rebuttal, who merely repeated certain testimony he had given on the People’s direct case (see, People v McRoy, 121 AD2d 566, 569; cf., People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047).

However, we find that these errors, even considered cumulatively, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt since the improperly allowed testimony did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and there was strong independent evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v McRoy, supra; see also, People v Saez, 69 NY2d 802; People v Brown, 126 AD2d 657; People v Mathure, 111 AD2d 876).

We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 607, 551 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alston-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack