People v. Hemphill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hemphill

247 A.D.2d 339, 669 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1832

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered September 9, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life on each conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in restricting defendant’s re-cross-examination of one of the People’s police witnesses since defendant’s examination went beyond the People’s inquiry on redirect (People v Bethune, 105 AD2d 262, 269, lv denied 64 NY2d 1016; see also, Matter ofMorlin R., 236 AD2d 201). In any event, defendant was accorded sufficient scope of inquiry concerning the subject in question and the court’s restrictions on re-cross-examination caused no prejudice.

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to [340]*340amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion raising this issue (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998), we conclude that defendant has failed to demonstrate “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for counsel’s conduct (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709) or that but for counsel’s purported errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We conclude that any error in the court’s ruling concerning evidence of a cooperation agreement involving a witness was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 8-9).

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered September 9, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life on each conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in restricting defendant’s re-cross-examination of one of the People’s police witnesses since defendant’s examination went beyond the People’s inquiry on redirect (People v Bethune, 105 AD2d 262, 269, lv denied 64 NY2d 1016; see also, Matter ofMorlin R., 236 AD2d 201). In any event, defendant was accorded sufficient scope of inquiry concerning the subject in question and the court’s restrictions on re-cross-examination caused no prejudice.

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to [340]*340amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion raising this issue (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998), we conclude that defendant has failed to demonstrate “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for counsel’s conduct (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709) or that but for counsel’s purported errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We conclude that any error in the court’s ruling concerning evidence of a cooperation agreement involving a witness was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 8-9).

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

People v. Hemphill, 247 A.D.2d 339, 669 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

247 A.D.2d 339 (People v. Hemphill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related