People v. Drake

Decision Date16 June 2005
Docket Number6342.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PARIS DRAKE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of identification and credibility were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations. The eyewitness testimony identifying defendant was corroborated by other proof, including evidence of defendant's actions and statements evincing a consciousness of guilt.

The court's charge, read as a whole (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821, 823 [1995]), properly instructed the jury on the use of expert testimony. The challenged portion of the charge, read in context, did no more than correctly warn the jury against permitting an expert witness to usurp the jury's fact-finding role (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 506 [2002]), and it could not have undermined the value of the expert testimony introduced by defendant.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for an in camera review of a witness's confidential psychiatric records, and in precluding defendant from inquiring about the witness's psychiatric treatment, since the information before the court provided no reason to believe that these matters had any bearing on the witness's ability to make a reliable identification (see People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 548-550 [1979]; see also People v Mandel, 48 NY2d 952, 954 [1979], cert denied 446 US 949 [1980]). Similarly, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request to recall a witness for further cross-examination concerning a purported inconsistent statement, since the statement was completely irrelevant (see People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80 [1978], cert denied 442 US 910 [1979]). Defendant received a full opportunity to impeach each of these two witnesses, and in each situation there was no impairment of defendant's right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Delaware v Van Arsdall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Drake v. Woods
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 10, 2008
    .......         On June 16, 2005, the First Department unanimously affirmed Drake's conviction. People v. Drake, 19 A.D.3d 209, 797 N.Y.S.2d 52 (1st Dep't 2005). The court ruled that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, and that the trial court's charge properly instructed the jury on the use of expert testimony. Id. at 53. The court also found that the trial court properly ......
  • People v. Horton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 5, 2020
    ...126 A.D.3d 1367, 1368–1369, 5 N.Y.S.3d 650 [2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1168, 15 N.Y.S.3d 300, 36 N.E.3d 103 [2015] ; People v. Drake, 19 A.D.3d 209, 210, 797 N.Y.S.2d 52 [2005], affd 7 N.Y.3d 28, 817 N.Y.S.2d 583, 850 N.E.2d 630 [2006] ). In another motion in limine, defense counsel sought ......
  • People v. Drake
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 2005
  • People v. Drake
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2005
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT