People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 24 December 1990 |
| Citation | 563 N.Y.S.2d 483,168 A.D.2d 653 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kevin SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall and Margaret E. Mainusch, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and HARWOOD, O'BRIEN and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered October 15, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his judgment of conviction should be reversed because the testimony of the People's leading witness was acquired by duress. We disagree. While the issue is preserved for appellate review even though there was no objection until the close of the testimony (see, CPL 470.05[2]; cf., People v. Butchino, 141 A.D.2d 986, 530 N.Y.S.2d 642; People v. Vasquez, 114 A.D.2d 589, 590, 494 N.Y.S.2d 198), it is lacking in merit. The witness was extensively cross-examined about the alleged police coercion, making the jury fully aware of any weaknesses in his testimony (see, People v. Reid, 69 N.Y.2d 469, 477, 515 N.Y.S.2d 750, 508 N.E.2d 661). "Thus, the requirements of law were met because 'the fact of such [alleged] earlier coercion or other official lawlessness [was] disclosed to the jurors so that they [could] pass upon the witness' veracity and credibility and determine whether the testimony given in open court was truthful and worthy of consideration' " (People v. Reid, supra, quoting from People v. Portelli, 15 N.Y.2d 235, 239, 257 N.Y.S.2d 931, 205 N.E.2d 857, cert. denied 382 U.S. 1009, 86 S.Ct. 612, 15 L.Ed.2d 1009, 16 L.Ed.2d 524).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Russ
...expectation that future cases will not suffer recurrence of such evidentiary detours and prejudicial tactics (compare, People v. Smith, 168 A.D.2d 653, 563 N.Y.S.2d 483, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 967, 570 N.Y.S.2d 501, 573 N.E.2d 589). We also note that the prosecutorial actions of this case are......
- People v. Thebner
-
Smith v. McGinnis, CV 98-1034(RJD).
...service. On December 24, 1990, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed petitioner's judgment of conviction. People v. Smith, 168 A.D.2d 653, 563 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2d Dep't 1990). On April 3, 1991, the New York Court of Appeals denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal. People v. S......
-
People v. Smith
...the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this court dated December 24, 1990 (People v. Smith, 168 A.D.2d 653, 563 N.Y.S.2d 483), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 15, ORDERED that the application is denied. Th......