People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 21 May 1990
• Citation: 558 N.Y.S.2d 842,161 A.D.2d 743
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Chris WRIGHT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 842

558 N.Y.S.2d 842

161 A.D.2d 743

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Chris WRIGHT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

May 21, 1990

Charles E. Holster III, Garden City, for appellant. Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty. (Bruce E. Whitney and Alexis Kriedman, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered July 9, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to retain the services of an expert in the field of eyewitness identification at public expense (see, County Law § 722-c; People v. Gibbs, 157 A.D.2d 799, 550 N.Y.S.2d 400; People v. Brown, 136 A.D.2d 1, 15-16, 525 N.Y.S.2d 618, cert. denied 488 U.S. 897, 109 S.Ct. 240, 102 L.Ed.2d 229; People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.2d 589, 514 N.Y.S.2d 85). In this regard, we note that the reliability of eyewitness identification is not a proper subject for expert testimony, as it pertains to matters of common knowledge which are not beyond the ken of lay jurors (see, People v. Gibbs, supra; People v. Foulks, 143 A.D.2d 1038, 533 N.Y.S.2d 619; People v. Slack, 131 A.D.2d 610, 516 N.Y.S.2d 309). Further, the deficiencies alleged by the defendant with respect to the accuracy of the identifications made by the complainants were conveyed to the jury through cross-examination, counsel's argument on summation, and the court's instructions to the jury (see, People v. Gibbs, supra; People v. Foulks, supra; People v. Slack, supra ). The defendant further contends that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that the complainants suffered "physical injury" as defined in Penal Law § 10.00(9) in order to sustain his conviction of two counts of robbery in the second degree. However, as the defendant did not raise a specific objection on this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Lyons, 154 A.D.2d 715, 546 N.Y.S.2d 691; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, the record supports the jury's finding that the complainants suffered the requisite physical injury (see, People v. Nix, 156 A.D.2d 722, 549...