People v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 18 November 1985
• Citation: 114 A.D.2d 980,495 N.Y.S.2d 682
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nathaniel RICHARDSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 682

495 N.Y.S.2d 682

114 A.D.2d 980

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nathaniel RICHARDSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 18, 1985.

Kelley Drye & Warren, New York City (Richard S. Order, of counsel), and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant (one brief filed).

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Dolores Kanski, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, BROWN and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ferraro, J.), rendered March 10, 1981, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (three counts), assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by reason of the prosecutor's improper cross-examination of a character witness is unpersuasive. The record reveals that, after the witness testified about defendant's reputation for truthfulness and peacefulness, the prosecutor asked him "Did you know was arrested for kidnapping in 1975?" An objection to the question was sustained before the witness could answer, and the jury was then instructed to disregard the question. Defendant claims that a mistrial should have been declared because the prosecutor lacked a good faith basis for making the inquiry and because the question improperly called for information concerning the witness' personal knowledge of defendant's prior arrest. We find that the question was asked in good faith, for the record discloses that the prosecutor possessed a fingerprint identification form indicating that defendant had been arrested for the crime of kidnapping (see, People v. Tempera, 94 A.D.2d 748, 462 N.Y.S.2d 512). However, the question was improperly phrased to elicit the witness' personal knowledge of defendant's past conduct instead of his knowledge of defendant's reputation (see, People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196, 417 N.Y.S.2d 452, 391 N.E.2d 288 rearg. dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 635; People v. Santiago, 78 A.D.2d 666, 432 N.Y.S.2d 216). While this was error, the effect of the question was rendered harmless by virtue of the fact that the trial court promptly sustained the defense objection, ordered the prosecutor to refrain from further inquiry along those lines, and instructed the jury to disregard the question.

Similarly unconvincing is defendant's claim that prosecutorial misconduct during the People's...