People v. Straker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Straker

247 A.D.2d 266, 667 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1407

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 17, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel Sullivan, J.), rendered April 22, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7½ to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted testimony that the complainant had previously viewed a photographic array, and properly allowed the prosecution to introduce the fact that a photo array had taken place, without mentioning that defendant had been identified. We conclude that defendant opened the door to this limited testimony under the circumstances (see, People v Collins, 214 AD2d 483, lv denied 86 NY2d 733; People v Austin, 152 AD2d 590). In any event, any error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Johnson, 32 NY2d 814). Any prejudice stemming from the defense witness’s unprovoked comment that the complainant might have picked out defendant from a photo array was prevented by the court’s immediate curative instruction.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel Sullivan, J.), rendered April 22, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7½ to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted testimony that the complainant had previously viewed a photographic array, and properly allowed the prosecution to introduce the fact that a photo array had taken place, without mentioning that defendant had been identified. We conclude that defendant opened the door to this limited testimony under the circumstances (see, People v Collins, 214 AD2d 483, lv denied 86 NY2d 733; People v Austin, 152 AD2d 590). In any event, any error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Johnson, 32 NY2d 814). Any prejudice stemming from the defense witness’s unprovoked comment that the complainant might have picked out defendant from a photo array was prevented by the court’s immediate curative instruction.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

People v. Straker, 247 A.D.2d 266, 667 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

247 A.D.2d 266 (People v. Straker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related