People v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 01 June 1993
• Citation: 194 A.D.2d 570,598 N.Y.S.2d 328
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lawrence PATTERSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 328

598 N.Y.S.2d 328

194 A.D.2d 570

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lawrence PATTERSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 1, 1993.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Steven M. Statsinger, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Robin A. Forshaw, and Sharon Kiel, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and O'BRIEN, COPERTINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered March 19, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of robbing a victim, in Queens, at gunpoint. When the victim reported the robbery, he described the defendant's car, including the last three numbers of its license plate. Based on that description, the police traced the car to the defendant, and the victim identified him as the robber at a lineup and at trial. The two alibi witnesses testified that the defendant spent the entire night of the robbery at a Brooklyn apartment, playing video games and watching videotaped movies, including "House Party". On cross-examination, the alibi witnesses testified that they and the defendant made a quick trip to the defendant's room, which was in another apartment in the same housing project, to collect some belongings. One of the alibi witnesses, the defendant's fiance, testified on cross-examination that later that night, between 9:30 P.M. and 12:30 A.M., she and the defendant also took a walk through the parking lot of their housing project, and saw the defendant's car there. The other alibi witness testified that, once the three of them returned from collecting the belongings, the defendant and his fiance did not go out again. She also testified on cross-examination that she had purchased the videotape "House Party" from a street vendor about two weeks before the night of the robbery, and that the defendant had watched this movie, and another, alone.

In rebuttal, the prosecutor called three witnesses. The first was a police detective who, while investigating the robbery, interviewed the other alibi witness. She told him that once the defendant and his fiance arrived at her apartment, they never went out again; she did not mention a trip to collect belongings. The alibi witness also told him that she had copied the videotape "House Party" from a friend's master copy, and that the defendant and his fiance had watched the movies together. The second rebuttal witness was a New York City bus driver who had observed the defendant's car in Queens, approximately a mile from the robbery site, about 10 minutes before the robbery. The third rebuttal witness was an employee for a major videotape distributor, who testified that the videotape "House Party" did not become commercially available for sale or rental until nearly two months after the robbery.

We disagree with the defendant's contention that this rebuttal testimony pertained to collateral matters and was therefore inadmissible. While a witness may not be impeached with extrinsic evidence on a collateral issue (see, People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, 456 N.Y.S.2d 694, 442...