People v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 06 December 1984 |
| Citation | 483 N.Y.S.2d 740,106 A.D.2d 683 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benjamin CUNNINGHAM, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. Ellen Purcell, Albany, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Dist. Atty., Albany (John P.M. Wappett, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, YESAWICH, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered September 2, 1983, upon a verdict convicting defendant of three counts of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
When defendant attempted to cash a forged check at the Loudonville branch of Mechanics Exchange Bank on March 24, 1983, he was recognized by a teller as the individual who had previously negotiated a forged check at the bank, and the police were alerted. Later that day, defendant and his companions were arrested and taken into custody. Following the arrest, police found two additional checks bearing a forged endorsement in defendant's coat pocket. Defendant was indicted on three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and, following a jury trial, was found guilty on each count. Following a persistent felony offender hearing (CPL 400.20), defendant was adjudicated a persistent felony offender and given an indeterminate sentence of 20 years to life.
On appeal, defendant asserts several errors allegedly warranting reversal. Defendant alleges that the Trial Judge so interfered with the conduct of the trial by repeatedly taking over the questioning of witnesses as to deny defendant a fair trial. Even were the issue preserved for our consideration, we would find it to be without merit. Contrary to defendant's allegations, the Trial Judge only very occasionally and briefly asked questions of witnesses in an attempt to clarify for the jury time frames and other testimony. A Trial Judge is obliged to insure that what may be confusing testimony is clarified for the jury and that the trial proceed in an orderly and expeditious manner (People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 57, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556). Any intrusion by the trial court to clarify testimony was minor and, thus, permissible (People v. Griffin, 100 A.D.2d 659, 661, 473 N.Y.S.2d 851).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel assertion is completely premised on the alleged failure of defense counsel to request a bill of particulars, and the point is entirely without merit. In his omnibus motion, defense counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Garrow
...brief questioning of the victim to clarify his testimony was a minor intrusion and, thus, permissible (see, People v. Cunningham, 106 A.D.2d 683, 684, 483 N.Y.S.2d 740). Judgment MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ., concur. ...
-
People v. Mitchell
...249 A.D.2d 584; People v Batista, 235 A.D.2d 631; People v Turner, 234 A.D.2d 704; People v Brown, 157 A.D.2d 790, 792; People v Cunningham, 106 A.D.2d 683). ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and SMITH, JJ., ...
-
People v. Thomas
...(see, People v. Oliver, 96 A.D.2d 1104, 467 N.Y.S.2d 76, affd. 63 N.Y.2d 973, 483 N.Y.S.2d 992, 473 N.E.2d 242; People v. Cunningham, 106 A.D.2d 683, 483 N.Y.S.2d 740; Penal Law § 70.10[2]; CPL 400.20[1] The defendant's contention that the court sentenced him as a persistent felony offender......
-
People v. Cunningham
...offender and given an indeterminate sentence of 20 years to life. Upon appeal, this court affirmed the conviction and sentence (106 A.D.2d 683, 483 N.Y.S.2d 740). Defendant made the instant CPL 440.20 motion in March 1985, seeking to set aside his sentence on the grounds that he did not rec......