People v. Harriott
Decision Date | 12 May 2015 |
Docket Number | 15081, 119/11 |
Citation | 9 N.Y.S.3d 228,128 A.D.3d 470,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04044 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert HARRIOTT, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Law Office of Deron Castro, Forest Hills (Patrick Michael Megaro of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Malancha Chanda of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 27, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence established that defendant and his accomplices (see Penal Law § 20.00 ) restrained the victim by threatening to use deadly force, and struck him with several dangerous instruments, causing physical injury.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to strike, as unresponsive, the victim's answer to a question on cross-examination. The answer was essentially responsive, even though it went somewhat beyond the scope of the question. Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court should have struck two previous responses, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Defendant was not prejudiced by any of the allegedly unresponsive answers.
Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when, based on concerns about the conduct of some spectators, the District Attorney's Office placed approximately eight plainclothes investigators, only two of whom had their shields displayed, in the spectator section. The presence of these officers was unobtrusive, and there was no risk of prejudice (see Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 [1986] ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Acosta
...1461, 1462, 65 N.Y.S.3d 876 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1016, 78 N.Y.S.3d 286, 102 N.E.3d 1067 [2018] ; People v. Harriott , 128 A.D.3d 470, 471, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1008, 20 N.Y.S.3d 549, 42 N.E.3d 219 [2015] ).Defendant failed to preserve for our......
-
People v. Acosta
...31 N.Y.3d 1148 [2018]; cf. People v Nguyen, 156 A.D.3d 1461, 1462 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1016 [2018]; People v Harriott, 128 A.D.3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1008 [2015]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that he was depriv......
-
People v. Murray
...), we conclude that the verdict convicting defendant of those crimes is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Harriott , 128 A.D.3d 470, 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1008, 20 N.Y.S.3d 549, 42 N.E.3d 219 [2015] ; People v. Balcom , 171 A.D.2d 1028......
- People v. Quattrocchi
-
Witness examination
...request a bench conference and ask the judge to admonish counsel concerning the impropriety of the objection. CASES People v. Harriott , 128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 (1st Dept. 2015). he trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to strike the victim’s......
-
Witness examination
...called for speculation as to why the oicer’s partner made a certain remark during the defendant’s interview. People v. Harriott , 128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 (1st Dept. 2015). he trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to strike the victim’s unresp......
-
Witness examination
...called for speculation as to why the oicer’s partner made a certain remark during the defendant’s interview. People v. Harriott , 128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 (1st Dept. 2015). he trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to strike the victim’s unresp......
-
Witness examination
...called for speculation as to why the oicer’s partner made a certain remark during the defendant’s interview. People v. Harriott , 128 A.D.3d 470, 9 N.Y.S.3d 228 (1st Dept. 2015). he trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to strike the victim’s unresp......