People v. Harriott

128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 12, 2015
Docket15081 119/11
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 470 (People v. Harriott) 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. Harriott, 128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 27, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence established that defendant and his accomplices (see Penal Law § 20.00) restrained the victim by threatening to use deadly force, and struck him with several dangerous instruments, causing physical injury.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying de *471 fendant’s motion to strike, as unresponsive, the victim’s answer to a question on cross-examination. The answer was essentially responsive, even though it went somewhat beyond the scope of the question. Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court should have struck two previous responses, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Defendant was not prejudiced by any of the allegedly unresponsive answers.

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when, based on concerns about the conduct of some spectators, the District Attorney’s Office placed approximately eight plainclothes investigators, only two of whom had their shields displayed, in the spectator section. The presence of these officers was unobtrusive, and there was no risk of prejudice (see Holbrook v Flynn, 475 US 560 [1986]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Acosta
175 N.Y.S.3d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Murray
162 N.Y.S.3d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Quattrocchi
2021 NY Slip Op 00504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Johnson
136 A.D.3d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harriott-nyappdiv-2015.