People v. Pryor
| Decision Date | 16 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | 3127. |
| Citation | 772 N.Y.S.2d 823,5 A.D.3d 222,2004 NY Slip Op 01698 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARTHUR PRYOR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The victim had sufficient opportunity to observe defendant at the time of the crime, gave a detailed and accurate description, and made a reliable lineup identification.
Defendant received a full opportunity to impeach the victim by means of a statement she made to a defense investigator. Defendant questioned the victim extensively about her statement, elicited the alleged inconsistencies between her statement and her trial testimony, and squarely placed these matters before the jury in summation. Accordingly, the trial court's restrictions on defendant's use of the statement did not impair his cross-examination or his right to a fair trial (see People v Rivera, 188 AD2d 322, 323 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 793 [1993]; see also Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the People to resubmit the case to a second grand jury panel (see CPL 190.75 [3]). The fact that after the first submission there were insufficient votes to either indict or dismiss was a legitimate reason for a new submission. Accordingly, the motion court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. Since the People, in fact, obtained leave to resubmit, it is academic whether leave was required (see e.g. People v Aarons, 305 AD2d 45 [2003], lv granted 100 NY2d 567 [2003]).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pryor v. Connolly
...violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. On March 16, 2004, the Appellate Division affirmed. See People v. Pryor, 5 A.D.3d 222, 772 N.Y.S.2d 823 (1st Dep't 2004). The court held that the weight of the evidence was not against the verdict and rejected petitioner's pro se supplemen......
-
People v. Patron
...decisional authority was being subverted” (People v. Credle, 17 N.Y.3d 556, 562, 934 N.Y.S.2d 77, 958 N.E.2d 111 ; see People v. Pryor, 5 A.D.3d 222, 772 N.Y.S.2d 823 ). The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun recovered f......
-
People v. Hutchinson
...to a second grand jury (see People v. Credle, 17 N.Y.3d 556, 561, 934 N.Y.S.2d 77, 958 N.E.2d 111 [2011] ; People v. Pryor, 5 A.D.3d 222, 223, 772 N.Y.S.2d 823 [1st Dept.2004] ; People v. Gordon, 13 Misc.3d 618, 621, 823 N.Y.S.2d 840 [Sup.Ct.2006] ; CPL 190.75[3] ). Instead, the People chos......
-
People v. Morris
...defense is speculative. In any event, the defense was able to alert the jury to the alleged inconsistency ( see generally People v. Pryor, 5 A.D.3d 222, 772 N.Y.S.2d 823 [1st Dept. 2004], lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 661, 782 N.Y.S.2d 703, 816 N.E.2d 576 [2004] ). Since defendant never claimed he was......