People v. Brockington
| Decision Date | 20 January 1987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raymond BROCKINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Solomon Rosengarten, New York City, for appellant.
Raymond Brockington, pro se.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Jeanette Lifschitz, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and NIEHOFF, KUNZEMAN and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), rendered August 17, 1982, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts), grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence at trial revealed that after the defendant was seen in a stolen Cadillac by two police officers and stopped, he fired a gunshot at the officers and sped off. A chase ensued, and the defendant was eventually arrested. He now contends that references in the officer's testimony to uncharged crimes committed by him deprived him of a fair trial. Specifically, he points to testimony by Detective Cammarata and Officer Balcuk that they were assigned to the Queens Robbery Squad investigating "driveway robberies" when they received a call from the Nassau Robbery Squad with respect to the Cadillac in question; testimony by Captain Hennesy that he supervised the Robbery Squads in Brooklyn and Queens and responded to the scene of the stolen Cadillac in connection with one of the investigations that he was overseeing; testimony by Cammarata that the defendant told him that he had "used the car * * * to do two robberies out in Nassau County"; and the prosecutor's summation comment that there was a stipulation that Officer Sirianni would have testified that at 3:30 P.M. on the date of the incident the Nassau Robbery Squad informed the Queens Robbery Squad that the Cadillac "was reported and wanted". We disagree with the defendant's contention.
It should first be pointed out that the defendant agreed to the above stipulation and should not be able to now object to this evidence. Moreover, by so stipulating, the defendant informed the jury that members of the robbery squad were involved in the investigation. Therefore, his argument on appeal that he was prejudiced by certain police officers' identifying themselves as members of the robbery squad is unpersuasive. In any event, such testimony was relevant and necessary to the People's case in view of defense counsel's argument in his opening statement that the officers' encounter with the defendant was somehow racially motivated and that they fabricated the shooting incident because the defendant was black. This argument, coupled with testimony later elicited on cross-examination and elsewhere that the officers' encounter with the defendant occurred at 5:00 P.M. while the complainant did not report her car stolen until 6:00 P.M. on that day, made it incumbent upon the People to explain that the police had stopped the defendant before the car had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lindh
...804 (1988); People v. Galimanis, 765 P.2d 644 (Colo.Ct.App.1988), cert. granted, 783 P.2d 838 (Colo.1989); People v. Brockington, 126 A.D.2d 655, 511 N.Y.S.2d 84, 86 (1987). We conclude that, even if Lindh arguably did invoke his right to remain silent, Dr. Roberts scrupulously honored that......
-
People v. Tabora
...complete the narrative of the crime charged ( see, People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850; People v. Brockington, 126 A.D.2d 655, 511 N.Y.S.2d 84) and may also be received in evidence if it is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, provided its probative ......
-
People v. Sessions
...139 A.D.2d 540, 541, 527 N.Y.S.2d 36; see also, People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850; People v. Brockington, 126 A.D.2d 655, 511 N.Y.S.2d 84). None of these exceptions apply. The prior crimes were remote in time to the instant offense, involved entirely different......
-
People v. Brown
...The testimony regarding Switzer's prior bad act may have been a fair way to impeach his credibility. Cf., People v. Brockington, 126 A.D.2d 655, 656, 511 N.Y.S.2d 84 (2d Dept.1987). In any event, under the facts of this case, testimony as to the observation of this action coupled with a sim......