People v. Fernandez
| Decision Date | 03 November 2010 |
| Citation | 910 N.Y.S.2d 140,78 A.D.3d 726 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ruben FERNANDEZ, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 726
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ruben FERNANDEZ, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 3, 2010.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garvin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbott, and Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.
STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, RANDALL T. ENG, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered April 1, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Demakos, J.H.O.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence, his statements to law enforcement officials, and physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding expert testimony concerning the effects of stress on the accuracy of eyewitness identification and the absence of a correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. "As a general rule, the admissibility and limits of expert testimony lie primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court. 'It is for the trial court in the first instance to determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness' " ( People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63, quoting People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 433, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110, 458 N.E.2d 351), where the case hinges on the accuracy of eyewitness identification and there is little or no corroborative evidence connecting the defendant to the crime ( see People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449, 452, 835 N.Y.S.2d 523, 867 N.E.2d 374; People v. Harris, 74 A.D.3d 984, 902 N.Y.S.2d 190). Here, however, there was sufficient corroborating evidence connecting the defendant
to the crime to obviate the need for expert testimony ( see People v. Abney, 13 N.Y.3d 251, 269, 889 N.Y.S.2d 890, 918 N.E.2d 486; People v. Young, 7...To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Page
-
People v. Rhodes
...96 N.Y.2d 157, 163, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63;People v. Rodriguez, 98 A.D.3d 530, 532, 949 N.Y.S.2d 441;People v. Fernandez, 78 A.D.3d 726, 726–727, 910 N.Y.S.2d 140). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in placing a time limit on the cross-examination of a certain ......
- People v. Rodriguez
-
People v. Redding, 2012-02646, 2014-04520, Ind. No. 11-00073.
...v. Rhodes, 115 A.D.3d 681, 682, 981 N.Y.S.2d 548 ; People v. Rodriguez, 98 A.D.3d 530, 532, 949 N.Y.S.2d 441 ; People v. Fernandez, 78 A.D.3d 726, 726–727, 910 N.Y.S.2d 140 ).Contrary to the defendant's contention, he has not demonstrated that his trial counsel was ineffective under either ......