People v. Conklin
| Decision Date | 01 June 1972 |
| Citation | 39 A.D.2d 160,332 N.Y.S.2d 826 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Joseph CONKLIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William H. Power, Jr., dist. Atty., St. Lawrence County, Canton (Robert J. Leader, Gouverneur, of counsel), for respondent.
Jack Scordo, Watertown, for appellant.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and STALEY, SWEENEY, SIMONS and KANE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered July 20, 1971, upon the jury verdict convicting defendant of criminally selling a dangerous drug, in the third degree.
The alleged act of drug selling took place in the relatively small Village of Canton, New York, but which is the site of several colleges and schools of higher learning.
The central issue on this appeal concerns the qustion of credibility, the appellant contending the verdict is against the weight of credible evidence and, therefore, that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence-in-chief of the People consisted of a witness admittedly an informer retained by the Chief of Police of the Village. The defendant took the stand in his own behalf and denied in substance the testimony of the informer concerning the alleged sale and the events leading to it. From the evidence the jury could and did find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The District Attorney on cross-examination of the defendant developed a pattern of questions concerning prior acts of the defendant involved drugs to which there were objections and which, in most instances, the court sustained. Following a question concerning the defendant having given marijuana to his brother, the court called a recess and in the presence of the defendant and the respective attorneys queried the District Attorney as to his 'good faith' and thereafter conducted a hearing 'in camera' of the witnesses the People proposed calling and interrogating as to prior acts. Following such hearing the court announced that it was going 'to foreclose any more testimony along this line' and in the charge stated that the defendant could not be convicted 'by implication in other criminal acts which were insinuated but were denied'. The extent to which attempts to discredit a witness may go is within the discretion of the trial court and it must be noted that here the court in holding an 'in camera' hearing took unusual precautions to protect the rights of the defendant.
The defendant further questions the reference to possession of drugs by him on April 4th, but it cannot be found on this record that such testimony was so prejudicial as to require a new trial. In substance, the testimony concerned conversations between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mandel
...4 Bender's N.Y. Evidence, § 245.03, subd. (8); McCormick, Evidence (2d ed., 1972), § 272, p. 656 et seq.; but see People v. Conklin, 39 A.D.2d 160, 162, 332 N.Y.S.2d 826, 827). "Though the rule ordinarily does not apply when a witness is equally accessible to both parties (Richardson, Evide......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...4 Bender's N.Y.Evidence, § 245.03, subd. (8); McCormick, Evidence (2d ed., 1972), § 272, p. 656 Et seq.; but see People v. Conklin, 39 A.D.2d 160, 162, 332 N.Y.S.2d 826, 827.) Though the rule ordinarily does not apply when a witness is equally accessible to both parties (Richardson, Evidenc......
-
People v. Law
...v. Leonardo, 199 N.Y. 432, 92 N.E. 1060). Even assuming that there was error in the District Attorney's comment (People v. Conklin, 39 A.D.2d 160, 332 N.Y.S.2d 826), the identity question was certainly established beyond a reasonable doubt in the People's favor and any error in regard there......
-
People v. Youmans, 3
...prosecution may not ordinarily comment on a defendant's failure to call witnesses (see, People v Rodriguez, 38 N.Y.2d 95, 98; People v Conklin, 39 A.D.2d 160, 162). However, where the defendant presents evidence with regard to a material witness, the prosecution does not impermissibly shift......