From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Broom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 1994
200 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Summary

holding that defense counsel's opening statement was not improperly curtailed

Summary of this case from State v. Tilghman

Opinion

January 25, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, John A.K. Bradley, J., Clifford A. Scott, J.


When the complainant's 20 minute direct examination was followed by 3 1/2 hours of repetitious cross-examination, over 2 days, the trial court properly exercised its discretion (see, People v. Brooks, 131 N.Y. 321, 326) in placing a half hour time limit on further cross-examination. In any event, at the end of the half hour, defense counsel did not indicate that he still had matters to cover. Similarly, we find that defense counsel's opening statement was not improperly curtailed.

Defendant's claim that the trial court engaged in a pattern of disparaging remarks directed at defense counsel was inadequately preserved with untimely objection (see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 55-56), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the remarks were made in the context of appropriate rulings on matters of law and could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (People v Martinez, 183 A.D.2d 485, 486), especially in the light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The court's charge on the status of the accomplice witness was contradictory in that it submitted the issue to the jury as a question of fact, even though the court's explanation of accessorial conduct had made it clear that the witness was an accomplice as a matter of law. Nevertheless, there was no danger of confusion because both the witness and the prosecutor conceded accomplice status.

There was no objection to the court's expanded charge on defendant's election not to testify, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The court's charge on credibility of witnesses was adequate to apprise the jury of its function. Finally, we find the photo array to be non-suggestive (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Broom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 1994
200 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

holding that defense counsel's opening statement was not improperly curtailed

Summary of this case from State v. Tilghman
Case details for

People v. Broom

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONNELL BROOM…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 25, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
606 N.Y.S.2d 687

Citing Cases

State v. Tilghman

Although there is scant case law in our State, see State v. Goldberg, 3 N.J. Misc. 984, 985, 130 A. 437…

People v. Ciavardini

Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence…