People v. Price
| Decision Date | 21 December 1987 |
| Citation | 135 A.D.2d 750,522 N.Y.S.2d 870 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gregory PRICE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (James Alexander Burke, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Jessica Hecht and Polly N. Passonneau, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, BRACKEN and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), rendered February 4, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During their case in chief, the People elicited testimony from the arresting officer that at the time of his arrest the defendant was found hiding in a closet of his aunt's apartment. The evidence of the defendant's effort to shield himself from discovery was properly admitted as some indication of a consciousness of guilt (see, People v. Limage, 57 A.D.2d 906, 394 N.Y.S.2d 458, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 845, 410 N.Y.S.2d 68, 382 N.E.2d 767; People v. Ofunniyin, 114 A.D.2d 1045, 1047, 495 N.Y.S.2d 485). When the prosecution has offered evidence of flight tending to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt, the defendant may explain his behavior, and "is entitled to the benefit of any explanation of his flight consistent with his innocence" (People v. Gonzales, 92 A.D.2d 873, 874, 459 N.Y.S.2d 823, mod. on other grounds 96 A.D.2d 847, 459 N.E.2d 1285, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 633, 471 N.Y.S.2d 847, 459 N.E.2d 1285). At bar, the defendant sought to rebut the unfavorable inference of guilt which may be drawn from the People's evidence by eliciting on cross-examination of the arresting officer that the defendant was hiding because he thought he was being arrested for a violation of parole not connected with the instant robbery. The defendant sought to minimize the prejudice resulting from this testimony by requesting the court to issue an appropriate instruction to the jury that the evidence of the defendant's parole status was introduced for a limited purpose. The trial court's failure to issue limiting instructions was error (cf., People v. Ciervo, 123 A.D.2d 393, 396, 506 N.Y.S.2d 462). However, the effect of the trial court's error was not so prejudicial as to have deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. During the robbery, the complainant observed the defendant from a short distance in good lighting conditions for a period of approximately 20 minutes. Furthermore, he was able to identify the defendant in a lineup conducted one month...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Myers
...60 A.D.3d 1101, 1103, 874 N.Y.S.2d 322 [2009],lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 862, 891 N.Y.S.2d 696, 920 N.E.2d 101 [2009];People v. Price, 135 A.D.2d 750, 750–751, 522 N.Y.S.2d 870 [1987],lv. denied71 N.Y.2d 972, 529 N.Y.S.2d 83, 524 N.E.2d 437 [1988] ). The jury verdict is supported by legally suffic......
-
Pinkney v. Keane
... ... Supp. 189 Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James, New York City by Diarmuid White, Herald Price Fahringer, for petitioner ... Michael O'Brien, Asst. Dist. Atty., John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty. of Queens County, Queens, N.Y., ... The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, People v. Pinkney, 135 A.D.2d 748, 522 N.Y.S.2d 653 (2nd Dep't 1987), and a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by Judge Simons ... ...
-
Dunnigan v. Keane
...was error, see People v. Hammock, 182 A.D.2d 1114, 1115, 583 N.Y.S.2d 89, 90 (4th Dep't 1992); see also People v. Price, 135 A.D.2d 750, 751, 522 N.Y.S.2d 870, 871-72 (2d Dep't 1987), and since in rejecting Dunnigan's Wade contention the court referred to "the strength of Nuchereno's identi......
-
John v. New York
...a propensity for committing crimes or that he [is] guilty of committing the crimes charged in th[e] case"); Peoplev. Price, 135 A.D.2d 750, 751, 522 N.Y.S.2d 870, 872 (2d Dep't 1987) ("The trial court's failure to issue limiting instructions was error."). This error did not, however, depriv......