People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 04 February 1992 |
| Citation | 579 N.Y.S.2d 371,180 A.D.2d 423 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reggie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, ROSS, SMITH and RUBIN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard C. Failla, J.) rendered December 20, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.
According to the People, defendant was chased by complainant and four of his friends into a subway station after defendant and two cohorts stole a sum of money from complainant. Eventually, defendant was cornered by two of complainant's friends in a subway car, and, responding to a demand that he return the money, stated that he had given it to one of his friends who had escaped. Seconds later, when police officers arrived at the scene, complainant and his friends pointed defendant out to the officers.
Defendant did not preserve for review the arguments that the officers' testimony concerning the five men pointing him out was improper hearsay with respect to the three friends who did not testify in court, and Trowbridge error (People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841) with respect to complainant and the friend who identified defendant at the trial (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Bolling, 166 A.D.2d 203, 564 N.Y.S.2d 99, lv. granted, 77 N.Y.2d 836, 567 N.Y.S.2d 204, 568 N.E.2d 653), and we decline to reach the issues raised. If we were to consider same in the interest of justice, we would find the first meritless because the gesturing was not offered at trial for the truth of the fact asserted, i.e., defendant's identity, and the second insufficient by itself to warrant a new trial, because, assuming there was impermissible bolstering, there is no reasonable danger that the jury may have used the testimony as a substitute for the identification made by complainant and the other eyewitnesses (People v. Jones, 170 A.D.2d 360, 566 N.Y.S.2d 264, lv. denied, 77 N.Y.2d 996, 571 N.Y.S.2d 922, 575 N.E.2d 408). Nor did the trial court err in refusing to suppress defendant's statement.
Upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, we find that defendant's will had not been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired such that the statement he made while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blake
...danger that the jury may have used the testimony as a substitute for the identification made by [the] complainant" (People v. Williams, 180 A.D.2d 423, 424, 579 N.Y.S.2d 371). The denial of youthful offender status was not an improvident exercise of the sentencing court's discretion (see, P......
-
People v. Watkins
...having eliminated any prejudice (see, People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852, 532 N.Y.S.2d 354, 528 N.E.2d 507; People v. Williams, 180 A.D.2d 423, 579 N.Y.S.2d 371, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 954, 583 N.Y.S.2d 208, 592 N.E.2d 816). Defendant's general objections, or his failure to object to the prom......
-
People v. Maldonado
...crime, upon which information the police detained defendant pending a viewing by the complainant, was not hearsay (People v. Williams, 180 A.D.2d 423, 424, 579 N.Y.S.2d 371, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 954, 583 N.Y.S.2d 208, 592 N.E.2d 816), did not violate defendant's confrontation rights and did......
- Cooper (U.S. Petroleum Corp.), Matter of