People v. Perez
| Decision Date | 09 November 1998 |
| Citation | 255 A.D.2d 403,681 N.Y.S.2d 550 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,039 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Duane PEREZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kathryn E. Leighton, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Monique Ferrell of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and COPERTINO, McGINITY and LUCIANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered March 27, 1997, convicting him of kidnaping in the second degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no error in the trial court's refusal to sanction the People for the destruction of a surveillance videotape prior to trial. There was no showing of bad faith on the part of the People, and the evidentiary value of the videotape was questionable. Photographs of two frames from the videotape were admitted into evidence, and there was testimony that the quality of these photographs equaled that of the videotape. Defense counsel explored the destruction of the videotape both in cross-examination and in summation. Given the minimal prejudice to the defendant, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to sanction the People (see, People v. Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217, 587 N.Y.S.2d 747; People v. McIntosh, 184 A.D.2d 662, 587 N.Y.S.2d 165).
It was not improper for the trial court to curtail cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding prior bad acts of which the witness had been accused, inasmuch as the witness had alerted the court to his intention to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination (see, People v. Thomas, 51 N.Y.2d 466, 472-473, 434 N.Y.S.2d 941, 415 N.E.2d 931; People v. Sapia, 41 N.Y.2d 160, 163-164, 391 N.Y.S.2d 93, 359 N.E.2d 688, cert. denied 434 U.S. 823, 98 S.Ct. 68, 54 L.Ed.2d 80; People v. Starr, 213 A.D.2d 758, 622 N.Y.S.2d 1010).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ), or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Castro
...and raise any applicable arguments during summation (see People v. Hester, 122 A.D.3d at 880, 996 N.Y.S.2d 353 ; People v. Perez, 255 A.D.2d 403, 403–404, 681 N.Y.S.2d 550 ; People v. Callendar, 207 A.D.2d 900, 900, 616 N.Y.S.2d 667 ; People v. Riviere, 173 A.D.2d 871, 871–872, 571 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Bernard
...was not prejudiced by the loss of the evidence at issue ( see People v. Rice, 39 A.D.3d at 569, 834 N.Y.S.2d 254;People v. Perez, 255 A.D.2d 403, 403–404, 681 N.Y.S.2d 550). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel took......
-
People v. Hester
...People v. Rice, 39 A.D.3d 567, 568–569, 834 N.Y.S.2d 254 ; People v. Berry, 260 A.D.2d 497, 497–498, 688 N.Y.S.2d 568 ; People v. Perez, 255 A.D.2d 403, 403–404, 681 N.Y.S.2d 550 ). The defendant's contention that a certain detective's testimony regarding the complainant's show-up identific......
-
People v. Santiago
...v. Hester, 122 A.D.3d 880, 880–881, 996 N.Y.S.2d 353 ; People v. Rice, 39 A.D.3d 567, 568–569, 834 N.Y.S.2d 254 ; People v. Perez, 255 A.D.2d 403, 403–404, 681 N.Y.S.2d 550 ; cf. People v. Holman, 283 A.D.2d 440, 441, 724 N.Y.S.2d 449 ; People v. Lineszy, 222 A.D.2d 527, 528, 635 N.Y.S.2d 537 ...