People v. Quesnel
| Decision Date | 17 April 1997 |
| Citation | 238 A.D.2d 725,656 N.Y.S.2d 772 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bradley S. QUESNEL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Livingston L. Hatch, Keeseville, for appellant.
Ronald J. Briggs, District Attorney (Valerie Friedlander, Division of Criminal Justice Services, Albany, of counsel), Elizabethtown, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, CASEY, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Lomanto, J.), rendered February 23, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree (three counts).
In the early morning hours of June 28, 1994, Gail Feliciano (hereinafter the victim) was sleeping in her bed when she was suddenly awakened by an intruder beating her on the head with a brick. When she attempted to get away from the intruder by crawling out of bed, he grabbed her, pulled her back and repeatedly struck her on the head. The struggle continued during which the victim pulled the intruder's hair--which she noted felt kinky--and gouged his face and neck with her fingernails in an effort to escape. Although dark, the victim was finally able to recognize defendant--the nephew of her former husband--as the intruder. When the victim began screaming for her husband, defendant fled.
As a result of the incident, the victim suffered from, among other injuries, a head laceration requiring sutures, a broken hand and bruises on her shoulders, upper arms, left leg and feet. Additionally, personal items were discovered missing from her home. Indicted on two counts of burglary in the first degree, two counts of assault in the first degree and three counts of assault in the second degree as a result of this incident and found guilty as charged following a jury trial, defendant appeals.
We affirm. Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because County Court failed to ascertain whether the People served him with a timely CPL 710.30 notice of an oral statement he made to a police officer after being arrested on June 28, 1994 for a parole violation. Having participated in a Huntley hearing concerning the admissibility of this statement conducted during the trial, but before the police officer's testimony, any failure by the People to serve a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 has been statutorily excused (see, CPL 710.30[3]; People v. Lopez, 84 N.Y.2d 425, 428, 618 N.Y.S.2d 879, 643 N.E.2d 501). Accordingly, defendant's argument in this regard is unavailing.
During the redirect examination of the victim, in response to questioning during cross-examination, it was revealed that the victim identified defendant in a photographic array a few days after the incident. On appeal, defendant urges that he is entitled to a new trial because no CPL 710.30 notice was served concerning the victim's pretrial identification of defendant and because no Wade hearing was conducted. Where participants to an incident are known to each other, as here, any pretrial photographic identification by the victim is not an identification within the meaning of CPL 710.30 and, therefore, no prior notice of such identification need be given nor a Wade hearing conducted (see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915, 916, 434 N.Y.S.2d 978, 415 N.E.2d 967; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924; People v Cherny, 179 A.D.2d 938, 939, 579 N.Y.S.2d 204, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 998, 584 N.Y.S.2d 453, 594 N.E.2d 947). In light of the evidence that defendant and the victim knew each other (they were once related by marriage and resided near each other), we reject defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial.
Also unavailing is defendant's contention that County Court abused its discretion in its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413), which permitted limited inquiry by the prosecution into defendant's 1983 burglary conviction, 1989 and 1991 criminal possession of stolen property convictions, 1992 guilty plea to a felony and his subsequent parole...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Olson
...256 A.D.2d 661, 662, 681 N.Y.S.2d 150 [1998],lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 981, 695 N.Y.S.2d 68, 716 N.E.2d 1113 [1999];People v. Quesnel, 238 A.D.2d 725, 726–727, 656 N.Y.S.2d 772 [1997],lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 896, 662 N.Y.S.2d 439, 685 N.E.2d 220 [1997] ). Defendant is correct that impeachment questio......
-
People v. Walts
...into a "sheer number of [prior] convictions" which might then have a disproportionate effect on the jury (see, e.g., People v. Quesnel, 238 A.D.2d 725, 656 N.Y.S.2d 772, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 896, 662 N.Y.S.2d 439, 685 N.E.2d 220; People v. Miller, 217 A.D.2d 810, 630 N.Y.S.2d 99, lv. denied......
-
People v. Williams
...self-interest ahead of the interests of society and was highly probative with regard to the issue of credibility (see, People v. Quesnel, 238 A.D.2d 725, 656 N.Y.S.2d 772, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 896, 662 N.Y.S.2d 439, 685 N.E.2d 220), notwithstanding the fact that these matters involved threa......
-
People v. Kingsbury
...underlying the convictions and by providing extensive limiting instructions during the course of the trial (see, People v. Quesnel, 238 A.D.2d 725, 726-727, 656 N.Y.S.2d 772, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 896, 662 N.Y.S.2d 439, 685 N.E.2d 220). Thus, in view of the circumstances, we perceive no reas......