People v. Lane
| Decision Date | 21 November 2006 |
| Citation | 7 N.Y.3d 888,860 N.E.2d 61 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bobby LANE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction. At the close of the People's case, defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case of grand larceny in the fourth degree. The trial court promptly denied that motion. After defendant presented his own evidence, he did not renew his earlier argument. Consequently, whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support each element of the crime is not a question of law that this Court may review (see e.g. People v. Payne, 3 N.Y.3d 266, 273, 786 N.Y.S.2d 116, 819 N.E.2d 634 [2004]; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 [2001]).
Defendant next contends that the trial court's evidentiary ruling violated his constitutional rights to a fair trial and to present a defense. While defendant was testifying, defense counsel sought to elicit defendant's alleged refusal to cash additional checks at the behest of a codefendant. Since defendant did not raise these constitutional claims in the trial court, they are unpreserved for our review (cf. People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 163, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63 [2001]; People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 743, 723 N.Y.S.2d 111, 746 N.E.2d 166 [2001]). Nor can it be said that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by precluding the proposed testimony. The court advised defense counsel that it wanted to "see how the questioning goes" and determine whether a foundation could be established for the inquiry; the court did not indicate that the evidence was irrelevant or inadmissible. On these facts, it cannot be said that the court's only reasonable course of action was to allow the proposed testimony to be admitted at the time it was offered.
Also unpersuasive is defendant's claim that the Appellate Division's reliance on People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 68 N.E. 112 (1903) indicates that the Court utilized an erroneous rule of law in rejecting his contention that the verdict was against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery v. Wood
...The rule relied upon by the Appellate Division was "firmly established and regularly followed state practice," see, e.g., People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61 (N.Y.2006), sufficient to satisfy the "adequate" prong of the "adequate and independent" test. In dete......
-
People v. Finch
...of the presentation of all the evidence (see Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d at 787, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430 ; People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61 [2006] [defendant failed to preserve his legal sufficiency claim because “(a)fter defendant presented his own evidence......
-
People v. Vargas
...presented evidence after his unsuccessful motion to dismiss and failed to renew the motion at the close of all proof ( see People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61 [2006]; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 62-63, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 [2001] ).2 Nevertheles......
-
People v. Hargrove
...reliability in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges who must rely on the printed record" ( People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 890, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61 ).In this case, the Supreme Court found that much of Detective Scarcella's testimony at the CPL article 440 hear......