People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 07 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2004-07757. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENYATTE WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly permitted the prosecutor to bolster a witness's prior in-court identification of the defendant with the testimony of a police officer, on redirect examination, is without merit. Where the opposing party, inter alia, opens the door on cross-examination to matters not touched upon on direct examination, a party has the right on redirect examination to explain, clarify, and fully elicit a question only partially examined on cross-examination. Where only part of a statement has been brought out on cross-examination, the other parts may be introduced on redirect examination for the purpose of explaining or clarifying the statement (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-452 [1982]). Thus, it was proper for the prosecutor to elicit from the police officer, on redirect examination, the portions of the eyewitness's statement that were not introduced on cross-examination.
Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, supra).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Feliciano, 302 AD2d 474 [2003]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Matos
...v. Melendez, 51 A.D.3d 1040, 1040–1041, 861 N.Y.S.2d 64 ; People v. Van Ness, 43 A.D.3d 553, 555, 840 N.Y.S.2d 250 ; People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 414, 840 N.Y.S.2d 815 ; see also People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451–452, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324 ). Nor was it error for the prose......
-
People v. Calderon
...759 ; People v. Holden, 82 A.D.3d 792, 793, 917 N.Y.S.2d 900 ; People v. Melendez, 51 A.D.3d 1040, 861 N.Y.S.2d 64 ; People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 414, 840 N.Y.S.2d 815 ; People v. Johnson, 296 A.D.2d 422, 745 N.Y.S.2d 51 ). A Sandoval hearing (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y......
-
Williams v. Ercole
...and (4) that petitioner's remaining contentions were unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 414, 414-415, 840 N.Y.S.2d 815 (2d Dept. 2007). On October 1, 2007, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York denied petitioner's application for leave to app......
-
People v. Brody
...clarify matters first raised and only partially explored during defense counsel's examination of those witnesses ( see People v. Williams, 43 A.D.3d 414, 840 N.Y.S.2d 815; People v. Goodson, 35 A.D.3d 760, 825 N.Y.S.2d 778). To the extent that testimony concerning a police radio transmissio......