People v. Peoples
| Citation | 533 N.Y.S.2d 311,143 A.D.2d 780 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jeffrey PEOPLES, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1988 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Michael Gore and Elizabeth Ostrow, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, EIBER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.), rendered August 18, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree from an indeterminate term of one to three years imprisonment to a determinate term of one year imprisonment; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of robbing Lebert Allen on the night of April 18, 1985, in Prospect Park. The defendant was one of a group of four men. Four days later, in response to a telephone call, Allen met the defendant in order to collect a credit card which was stolen during the robbery. Allen was accompanied by two plainclothes policemen. He identified the defendant as one of the thieves and the defendant was arrested.
The defendant alleges error in the admission of the testimony of one of the arresting officers. As the police accompanied Allen in meeting the defendant, the defendant recognized one officer as a policeman. The officer had apparently arrested the defendant on a prior occasion. On cross-examination the defense counsel asked the officer whether the officer was acquainted with the defendant prior to the day of his arrest. The policeman said he was. On redirect examination, the prosecutor asked the policeman when he had first met the defendant. The policeman answered "when I arrested him". The defendant alleges this was prejudicial error.
Where the opposing party opens the door on cross-examination "to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect 'to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ayala v. Portuondo
...had opened the door, see People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324 (1982); see also People v. Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780, 533 N.Y.S.2d 311 (2d Dep't 1988), or the challenged testimony was proper rebuttal testimony. See People v. Ramos, 139 A.D.2d 775, 527 N.Y.S.2d 52......
-
People v. Little
...that was beyond the subject matter of the cross-examination about Officer Cute's knowledge of the defendant (cf., People v. Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780, 533 N.Y.S.2d 311). The trial court, therefore, erred in allowing Officer Cute's testimony about the defendant's prior narcotics arrest (see, P......
-
People v. Adams
...examined' on cross-examination" (People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324; People v. Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780, 781, 533 N.Y.S.2d 311). The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a criminal facilitation charge as a lesser-included offense of robbery in......
-
People v. Ayala
...counsel had opened the door (see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324; see also, People v. Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780, 533 N.Y.S.2d 311), or as proper rebuttal testimony (see, People v. Ramos, 139 A.D.2d 775, 527 N.Y.S.2d The trial court impartially and success......