People v. DeBerry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeBerry

17 A.D.3d 480, 792 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3820

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 11, 2005·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered March 28, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[481] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court effectively deprived him of his right to present a defense by prospectively precluding a defense witness from testifying is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see e.g. People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465, 466 [2001]; People v Jones, 171 AD2d 609 [1991] ). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the witness from testifying in view of the collateral nature of the prospective testimony (see People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; People v Veras, 182 AD2d 729, 730 [1992]; People v O’Connor, 154 AD2d 626, 627 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered March 28, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[481] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court effectively deprived him of his right to present a defense by prospectively precluding a defense witness from testifying is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see e.g. People v Celifie, 287 AD2d 465, 466 [2001]; People v Jones, 171 AD2d 609 [1991] ). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the witness from testifying in view of the collateral nature of the prospective testimony (see People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998]; People v Veras, 182 AD2d 729, 730 [1992]; People v O’Connor, 154 AD2d 626, 627 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

People v. DeBerry, 17 A.D.3d 480, 792 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

17 A.D.3d 480 (People v. DeBerry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related