People v. Alcantara
| Citation | 910 N.Y.S.2d 509,78 A.D.3d 721 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Quiry ALCANTARA, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 721
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Quiry ALCANTARA, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 3, 2010.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., STEVEN W. FISHER, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), rendered March 20, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Tomei, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
"The primary purpose of a CPL 710.30 notice is to alert the defendant to the possibility that evidence identifying him [or her] as the person who committed the crime may be constitutionally tainted and subject to a motion to suppress" ( People v. Sigue, 300 A.D.2d 414, 415, 752 N.Y.S.2d 71 [internal quotation marks
omitted]; see People v. Collins, 60 N.Y.2d 214, 219, 469 N.Y.S.2d 65, 456 N.E.2d 1188; People v. Pannell, 287 A.D.2d 659, 731 N.Y.S.2d 750). Here, the defendant received a pretrial hearing which included an exploration of the eyewitness's photo array identification. Thus, any insufficiency in the CPL 710.30 notice in connection with the photo array identification did not require preclusion ( see People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903, 653 N.Y.S.2d 256, 675 N.E.2d 1208; People v. Sepulveda, 40 A.D.3d 1014, 837 N.Y.S.2d 220; People v. Sigue, 300 A.D.2d at 415, 752 N.Y.S.2d 71; People v. Berry, 242 A.D.2d 540, 661 N.Y.S.2d 671). In any event, any deficiency in the CPL 710.30 notice was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that any error contributed to his conviction ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).Contrary to the defendant's contentions, it was proper to permit the prosecutor to elicit testimony from an eyewitness that she had lied during her first grand jury testimony ( see People v. Minsky, 227 N.Y. 94, 98, 124 N.E. 126). It was necessary for the prosecutor to elicit this information from the witness to mitigate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wiltshire
...91 A.D.3d 1121, 1123, 936 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2012],lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 959, 944 N.Y.S.2d 487, 967 N.E.2d 712 [2012];People v. Alcantara, 78 A.D.3d 721, 722, 910 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 827, 921 N.Y.S.2d 191, 946 N.E.2d 179 [2011];People v. Armstead, 186 A.D.2d 440, 440, 589 N.Y.S......
-
People v. Nunez
...and not to “mitigate the more damaging effect” such revelation “would have if elicited on cross-examination” ( People v. Alcantara, 78 A.D.3d 721, 722, 910 N.Y.S.2d 509; see People v. Guy, 223 A.D.2d 723, 724, 637 N.Y.S.2d 445; People v. Minsky, 227 N.Y. 94, 98, 124 N.E. 126). The defendant......
-
People v. Smalls
...array identification procedure (see People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903, 905, 653 N.Y.S.2d 256, 675 N.E.2d 1208 ; People v. Alcantara, 78 A.D.3d 721, 722, 910 N.Y.S.2d 509 ). The County Court's imposition of a "lockdown" order does not warrant reversal, since concerns were raised regarding wi......
-
People v. Johnson
...history was to mitigate the damaging effect this information would have had if elicited on cross-examination ( see People v. Alcantara, 78 A.D.3d 721, 722, 910 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 827, 921 N.Y.S.2d 191, 946 N.E.2d 179 [2011]; People v. Guy, 223 A.D.2d 723, 724, 637 N.Y......