People v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 13 June 1988 |
| Citation | 141 A.D.2d 671,529 N.Y.S.2d 562 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Derrick LLOYD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Derrick Lloyd, pro se.
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (James Alexander Burke, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. Kew Gardens (Kenneth Appelbaum, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered December 19, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5] ).
The defendant's contention that permitting the complainant to testify in his Navy uniform served to deprive him of a fair trial is without merit. The trial court properly found that the jury would not automatically accord the complainant a greater measure of respect and trust merely because he was wearing a Navy uniform. This is especially true in the instant case where the complainant was a third-class petty officer who admitted to socializing in the streets with friends who drank beer and smoked marihuana. Moreover, the trial court instructed the jury in its charge that the complainant's testimony should not be accorded greater or lesser weight simply because he testified in uniform and that the complainant's testimony and credibility should be evaluated in the same manner as any other witness. Such instructions alleviated any resultant prejudice and served to insure that the defendant received a fair trial ( see, People v. Drucker, 100 Misc.2d 91, 418 N.Y.S.2d 744; cf., La Rocca v. Lane, 37 N.Y.2d 575, 376 N.Y.S.2d 93, 338 N.E.2d 606, cert. denied 424 U.S. 968, 96 S.Ct. 1464, 47 L.Ed.2d 734; People v. Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 365 N.Y.S.2d 527, 324 N.E.2d 885).
The defendant's further contention that the trial court, by its Allen charge ( see, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528), coerced the jury into reaching a verdict, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carver v. State
......519, 522, 280 A.2d 874 (1971) (no error in permitting victim to testify in uniform when victim on active duty and on leave for trial); People v. Lane, 398 Ill.App.3d 287, 296–301, 337 Ill.Dec. 452, 922 N.E.2d 575 (2010) (finding no prejudice to defendant when witnesses, including victim, ...State, 467 N.E.2d 1173, 1176(III) (Ind.1984) (not abuse of discretion to allow victim to testify in uniform); People v. Lloyd, 141 A.D.2d 671, 529 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1988) (allowing robbery victim to testify in uniform did not deprive 324 Ga.App. 425 defendant of fair trial); ......
-
People v. Lane
...defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial when a robbery victim was allowed to testify wearing his Navy uniform. People v. Lloyd, 141 A.D.2d 671, 672, 529 N.Y.S.2d 562, 562 (1988). The court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that jurors "would not automatically accord the com......
- People v. Lloyd
-
People v. Melendez
...... In any event, the defendant voluntarily proceeded to the voir dire of the jury and to trial. The defendant thereby impliedly consented to the irregular procedure. Indeed, no objection of any kind was ever raised as to the admission of these statements into evidence (cf., People v. Lloyd 141 A.D.2d 671, 529 N.Y.S.2d 562; People v. Fox, supra, 119 A.D.2d at 691, 501 N.Y.S.2d 113). Finally, we decline to reduce the ......