People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 03 November 1986
• Citation: 507 N.Y.S.2d 876,124 A.D.2d 615
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Cheryl WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 876

507 N.Y.S.2d 876

124 A.D.2d 615

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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 3, 1986.

J. Mitchell Rosenberg, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Michael Gore and Carol Teague Schwartzkopf, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and LAZER, MANGANO and THOMPSON, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mirabile, J.), rendered October 9, 1981, as amended October 21, 1981, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's challenges to two prospective jurors for cause because no basis for their exclusion from the jury was shown. Both prospective jurors unequivocably stated that their contacts with police officers would not affect their determination in the instant case and that they did not believe that police officers were more credible than any other witnesses.

The defendant was not prejudiced by the denial of her motion for a severance, since her own confession and trial testimony were substantially identical with the extra-judicial statement of her nontestifying codefendant (see, Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713; People v. McNeil, 24 N.Y.2d 550, 301 N.Y.S.2d 503, 249 N.E.2d 383, cert. denied sub nom. Spain v. New York, 396 U.S. 937, 90 S.Ct. 282, 24 L.Ed.2d 236; People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, 495 N.Y.S.2d 14, 485 N.E.2d 221, cert. granted 476 U.S. 1168, 106 S.Ct. 2888, 90 L.Ed.2d 976; People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155). Since the defendant did not clearly show that her codefendant would testify if they were tried separately and that such testimony would tend to exculpate her, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion (see, People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 350 N.Y.S.2d 369, 305 N.E.2d 461, cert. denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 109). The defendant's additional claims regarding the denial of her motion for a severance have not been preserved for review as a matter of law, and we decline to address them in the interest of justice.

The evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to all of the counts of which she was convicted (see, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932).

Any possible prejudice created by the prosecutor's summation was cured by the court's curative instructions (see, ...