People v. McCalla

Citation934 N.Y.S.2d 724,90 A.D.3d 949,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09347
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Cedric McCALLA, appellant.
Decision Date20 December 2011
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered June 9, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of assault in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the scope of defense counsel's questioning of prospective jurors during voir dire ( see CPL 270.15[1][c]; People v. Pepper, 59 N.Y.2d 353, 358, 359, 465 N.Y.S.2d 850, 452 N.E.2d 1178; People v. Byrd, 284 A.D.2d 201, 728 N.Y.S.2d 134; People v. Corbett, 68 A.D.2d 772, 778–779, 418 N.Y.S.2d 699, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 714, 436 N.Y.S.2d 273, 417 N.E.2d 567).

As the People correctly concede, the defendant's conviction of assault in the third degree must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the *725 second degree ( see CPL 300.40[3][b]; Penal Law §§ 120.05[1], 120.00[1] ).

RIVERA, J.P., ENG, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Taylor
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 8, 2020
  • People v. Laufer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 21, 2020
    ...its discretion in limiting the scope of defense counsel's questioning of prospective jurors during voir dire (see People v. McCalla, 90 A.D.3d 949, 949, 934 N.Y.S.2d 724 ; People v. Davis, 166 A.D.2d 453, 453, 560 N.Y.S.2d 499 ). The defendant contends that after a hearing that was held out......
  • People v. Lazartes
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2011
  • People v. McCalla
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 2012
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT