People v. Kaufman
| Decision Date | 26 December 1989 |
| Citation | 549 N.Y.S.2d 471,156 A.D.2d 718 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stephen KAUFMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, for appellant.
William L. Murphy, Dist. Atty., Staten Island (Yoland L. Rudich, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, HARWOOD and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), rendered May 24, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that evidence that the defendant had previously assaulted his sister-in-law was properly admitted by the Trial Justice. This evidence tended to establish the defendant's motive and intent in beating the victim to death and the Trial Justice properly instructed the jury with respect to the limited purpose for which it was admitted (see, People v. Band, 125 A.D.2d 683, 509 N.Y.S.2d 870; People v. Norman, 118 A.D.2d 597, 499 N.Y.S.2d 14; see also, People v. Castrechino, 134 A.D.2d 877, 521 N.Y.S.2d 960; People v. Roides, 124 A.D.2d 967, 508 N.Y.S.2d 826).
There was nothing particularly uncommon or unique about the scene of the crime and it was reasonable for the Trial Justice to conclude that inspecting the location would be of questionable value in helping the jury decide any material issue of fact. Accordingly, the Trial Justice did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying the defendant's request to permit the jury to view the scene of the crime (see, CPL 270.50[1]; People v. Zocchi, 133 A.D.2d 478, 519 N.Y.S.2d 690; People v. Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473, 519 N.Y.S.2d 571; People v. Hamilton, 112 A.D.2d 951, 492 N.Y.S.2d 632; People v. McCurdy, 86 A.D.2d 493, 450 N.Y.S.2d 507).
During cross examination, the privilege against self-incrimination was invoked by two prosecution witnesses. The defendant asserts that, as a result, the testimony of each witness should have been stricken. However, no motion to strike the testimony was made at trial. Accordingly, the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, in each instance the invocation of the privilege concerned a crime that the witness might have committed but for which she had not been convicted. The crimes did not pertain at all to the facts surrounding the crimes for which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Webb
... ... Jordan, 193 A.D.2d 890, 597 N.Y.S.2d 807; People v. Washington, 169 A.D.2d 795, 565 N.Y.S.2d 164; People v. Quinones, 166 A.D.2d 330, 561 N.Y.S.2d 4) and, in any event, is without merit because the now-challenged testimony was relevant to motive and intent (see, People v. Kaufman, 156 A.D.2d 718, 719, 549 N.Y.S.2d 471; People v. Stephens, 119 A.D.2d 777, 778, 501 N.Y.S.2d 184), and to complete the narrative of events leading up to the murder (see, People v. Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364, 368, 401 N.Y.S.2d 479, 372 N.E.2d 320; People v ... McDowell, 191 A.D.2d 515, 594 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
People v. Owusu
... ... Because defendant neither objected to nor moved to strike that testimony, his contention has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Kaufman, 156 A.D.2d 718, 719, 549 N.Y.S.2d 471, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 737, 558 N.Y.S.2d 899, 557 N.E.2d 1195). In any event, striking that testimony was not warranted because the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege concerned crimes that did not pertain to the facts surrounding the crimes for which ... ...
-
People v. Brock
... ... Perry, 218 A.D.2d 818, 630 N.Y.S.2d 795; People v. Irizarry, 214 A.D.2d 622, 625 N.Y.S.2d 92; People v. Sims, 209 A.D.2d 192, 618 N.Y.S.2d 283; People v. Kaufman, 156 A.D.2d 718, 549 N.Y.S.2d 471). In any event, the defendant was permitted to establish that the complainant had prior criminal convictions. Further, the disposition of the cases about which she refused to answer questions had no direct bearing on the facts surrounding the crime with which ... ...
- People v. Jones