People v. Nicosia
| Decision Date | 16 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2003-06483. |
| Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 04064,18 A.D.3d 673,795 N.Y.S.2d 335 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM NICOSIA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
On April 6, 2002, the defendant shot and killed his friend while practicing a military maneuver. During the trial, the defense attorney cross-examined a prosecution witness about the defendant's reputation for safety with guns. The Supreme Court ruled that this opened the door to questioning by the prosecutor about whether the witness heard of a prior incident in which the defendant discharged a gun in the direction of friends.
Although the evidence was precluded after a Molineux hearing (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]), we find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor, at trial, to question the witness about whether he had heard of the prior incident (see People v Rojas, 97 NY2d 32 [2001]). The defense attorney opened the door to the previously-precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the witness about the defendant's good reputation for safety (see People v Yarbough, 229 AD2d 605 [1996]). Moreover, the prosecutor merely inquired into whether the witness's depiction of the defendant's reputation was accurate, not the truth or falsity of the prior incident (see People v Yarbough, supra; People v Kuss, 32 NY2d 436, 443 [1973], cert denied 415 US 913 [1974]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Portalatin v. Graham
... ... On May 16, 2005, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, People v. Portalatin, 18 A.D.3d 673, 674, 795 N.Y.S.2d 334, 335 (2d Dep't 2005), and the New York Court of Appeals subsequently denied him leave to appeal, ... ...
-
Besser v. Walsh
... ... an "interests of justice" review and will be "held erroneous as a matter of law, if the sentencing court acts arbitrarily or irrationally." People v. Rivera, 5 N.Y.3d 61, 800 N.Y.S.2d 51, 833 N.E.2d 194, 199 (2005). Were imposition of a Class A-I sentence under the PFO statute found by an ... ...
-
People v. Ali
...that the witness had barely seen any impropriety in the defendant's treatment of the victim over the years ( see People v. Nicosia, 18 A.D.3d 673, 795 N.Y.S.2d 335 ). Moreover, jurors are presumed to have followed a court's limiting instructions, and any prejudicial impact was minimized her......
-
People v. Ciccone
...“to negate the trait in issue” ( People v. Rojas, 97 N.Y.2d 32, 38, 735 N.Y.S.2d 470, 760 N.E.2d 1265 [2001]; see People v. Nicosia, 18 A.D.3d 673, 673, 795 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2005]; People v. Morehouse, 5 A.D.3d 925, 928, 774 N.Y.S.2d 100 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 644, 782 N.Y.S.2d 416, 816 N......