People York v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People York v. Patterson

220 A.D.2d 625, 632 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 625 (People York v. Patterson) 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 York v. Patterson, 220 A.D.2d 625, 632 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered September 9, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the People’s direct case, Ricardo Romero, a passenger in the vehicle in which a revolver was recovered, testified pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution. He testified that in exchange for his truthful testimony, the District Attorney’s office agreed to dismiss the charge against him. On cross-[626]*626examination, the defendant’s counsel elicited that the agreement also called for the dismissal of the charge against codefendant Tutankhamu Livingston, who was then on trial with the defendant. The defendant’s counsel subsequently published this agreement to the jury. At the close of the People’s case and outside the presence of the jury, the prosecution moved to dismiss the charges against Livingston. Livingston was released without objection. The jury returned, and without indicating that the charges had been dismissed against Livingston, the court ordered the jury not to speculate as to what happened to Livingston.

The defendant’s contention that the dismissal of the charges against Livingston constituted bolstering of Romero’s testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, testimony regarding such an agreement with the prosecution does not constitute de facto bolstering of the testimony of the witness. The court properly instructed the jury not to speculate as to Livingston’s absence from the remainder of the trial, and correctly explained to the jury the weight to be accorded to Romero’s testimony.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered September 9, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the People’s direct case, Ricardo Romero, a passenger in the vehicle in which a revolver was recovered, testified pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution. He testified that in exchange for his truthful testimony, the District Attorney’s office agreed to dismiss the charge against him. On cross-[626]*626examination, the defendant’s counsel elicited that the agreement also called for the dismissal of the charge against codefendant Tutankhamu Livingston, who was then on trial with the defendant. The defendant’s counsel subsequently published this agreement to the jury. At the close of the People’s case and outside the presence of the jury, the prosecution moved to dismiss the charges against Livingston. Livingston was released without objection. The jury returned, and without indicating that the charges had been dismissed against Livingston, the court ordered the jury not to speculate as to what happened to Livingston.

The defendant’s contention that the dismissal of the charges against Livingston constituted bolstering of Romero’s testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, testimony regarding such an agreement with the prosecution does not constitute de facto bolstering of the testimony of the witness. The court properly instructed the jury not to speculate as to Livingston’s absence from the remainder of the trial, and correctly explained to the jury the weight to be accorded to Romero’s testimony.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 625, 632 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-york-v-patterson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack