People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 29 December 1995
• Citation: 636 N.Y.S.2d 347,222 A.D.2d 721
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dorphus WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 347

636 N.Y.S.2d 347

222 A.D.2d 721

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dorphus WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Dec. 29, 1995.

Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Linda Cantoni, and Randy S. Alpert, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and BALLETTA, MILLER and O'BRIEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 is inapplicable to the arrest made outside of his home (see, People v. Roe, 73 N.Y.2d 1004, 541 N.Y.S.2d 759, 539 N.E.2d 587; People v. Hayes, 221 A.D.2d 468, 633 N.Y.S.2d 565; People v. Rosario, 186 A.D.2d 598, 588 N.Y.S.2d 393).

In addition, the ruse employed by the detectives to get the defendant to exit his home did not render his arrest unlawful. A detective knocked on the defendant's door and told the woman who answered that there had been an accident involving the defendant's automobile. The defendant voluntarily left his house to investigate. Because the deception was not "so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process" (People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11, 427 N.Y.S.2d 944, 405 N.E.2d 188), the hearing court properly denied suppression of identification testimony on that ground (see, People v. Roe, supra; People v. Coppin, 202 A.D.2d 279, 608 N.Y.S.2d 661; People v. Rosario, supra ).

The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testify that he arrested the defendant after a conversation with a codefendant who did not testify at trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Valverde, 216 A.D.2d 339, 627 N.Y.S.2d 992; People v. Anthony, 179 A.D.2d 765, 579 N.Y.S.2d 1011; People v. Caldwell, 147 A.D.2d 581, 537 N.Y.S.2d 874; People v. Dubois, 137 A.D.2d 706, 524 N.Y.S.2d 795; People v. Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748, 485 N.Y.S.2d 847). In any event, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, including the strong identification testimony of the two victims (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Valverde, supra; People v. Anthony, supra ).

Similarily, any error regarding the prosecutor's opening and summation comments was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, ...