People v. Garrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garrick

246 A.D.2d 478, 667 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 478 (People v. Garrick) 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. Garrick, 246 A.D.2d 478, 667 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered March 14, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 to IOV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant’s character witnesses concerning whether they had heard of the acts of misconduct purportedly committed by defendant while in prison properly tested their credibility and the extent of their knowledge of defendant’s reputation (see, People v Duhaney, 157 AD2d 665, lv denied 75 NY2d 918). Furthermore, the prosecutor established a good faith basis for such questioning, avoided exploiting the details of the incidents, and ceased questioning on the issue after the witnesses indicated that they had not heard about the alleged misconduct (see, People v Bouton, 50 NY2d 130, 137-140; People v Kuss, 32 NY2d 436, cert denied 415 US 913). Moreover, the questioning was proper since both witnesses testified that they were in a position to know the nature of defendant’s reputation during the time period and location in question (People v Bouton, supra), and, although the questions pertained to defendant’s post-arrest [479]*479behavior, the witnesses testified to defendant’s present reputation for peacefulness as well as for truth and veracity (see, United States v Kelner, 534 F2d 1020, 1028, cert denied 429 US 1022). In any event, the court’s limiting instructions, to which counsel did not object, eliminated any possible prejudice to defendant.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these contentions, we would find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered March 14, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 to IOV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant’s character witnesses concerning whether they had heard of the acts of misconduct purportedly committed by defendant while in prison properly tested their credibility and the extent of their knowledge of defendant’s reputation (see, People v Duhaney, 157 AD2d 665, lv denied 75 NY2d 918). Furthermore, the prosecutor established a good faith basis for such questioning, avoided exploiting the details of the incidents, and ceased questioning on the issue after the witnesses indicated that they had not heard about the alleged misconduct (see, People v Bouton, 50 NY2d 130, 137-140; People v Kuss, 32 NY2d 436, cert denied 415 US 913). Moreover, the questioning was proper since both witnesses testified that they were in a position to know the nature of defendant’s reputation during the time period and location in question (People v Bouton, supra), and, although the questions pertained to defendant’s post-arrest [479]*479behavior, the witnesses testified to defendant’s present reputation for peacefulness as well as for truth and veracity (see, United States v Kelner, 534 F2d 1020, 1028, cert denied 429 US 1022). In any event, the court’s limiting instructions, to which counsel did not object, eliminated any possible prejudice to defendant.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these contentions, we would find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 478, 667 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garrick-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack