People v. Santano

• Decision Date: 16 November 1992
• Citation: 590 N.Y.S.2d 113,187 A.D.2d 618
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Francisco SANTANO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 113

590 N.Y.S.2d 113

187 A.D.2d 618

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Francisco SANTANO, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Nov. 16, 1992.

Domenick J. Porco, Scarsdale, for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Bruce Edward Kelly and Maryanne Luciano, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered March 9, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, we discern no error in the court's action in striking the testimony of defense witness, Dorothy Sandoval (see, People v. Benbow, 180 A.D.2d 805, 580 N.Y.S.2d 442). "While due process requires that a defendant in a criminal case be permitted to call witnesses in his own behalf and to introduce evidence that a person other than he committed the crime charged (see, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297), 'such evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime; there must be a clear link between the third party and the crime in question' " (People v. Zanfordino, 157 A.D.2d 682, 683, 549 N.Y.S.2d 782, quoting People v. Brown, 133 A.D.2d 773, 774, 520 N.Y.S.2d 166; People v. Austin, 112 A.D.2d 242, 491 N.Y.S.2d 458; People v. Aulet, 111 A.D.2d 822, 825, 490 N.Y.S.2d 567; People v. Jiminez, 172 A.D.2d 367, 368, 568 N.Y.S.2d 624). In the instant case, we find that the defendant failed to establish such a link. Bald assertions that two unknown men were the perpetrators by the mere fact that there were some similarities in their appearance and the description given by the complainant is insufficient to allow extended inquiry into irrelevant, speculative, and potentially confusing areas (see, People v. Zanfordino, supra; People v. Austin, supra ). Consequently, the court's preclusion of Sandoval's testimony was appropriate.

We further find no merit to the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in precluding his attorney from questioning a defense witness about certain allegedly prior inconsistent statements made to him by an eyewitness. The issue of the admissibility of a prior inconsistent statement for the purpose of impeaching a witness is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be set aside absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see, People v. Johnson, 176 A.D.2d 269, 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 380; People v. Fiedorczyk, 159 A.D.2d 585, 586, 552 N.Y.S.2d 443; People v. Auricchio, 141 A.D.2d 552, 529 N.Y.S.2d 163). Given the lack of a proper foundation for...