From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Caines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 28, 1995
221 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 28, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).


We find the evidence of guilt to be legally sufficient, and, indeed, overwhelming. Although the trial court improperly limited the cross-examination of one of the People's main witnesses by precluding cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication for armed robbery, the court did permit cross-examination regarding the witness's subsequent conviction for armed robbery while on bail in connection with the youthful offender case, the witness's entry of a guilty plea to criminal mischief in satisfaction of a charge of criminal possession of a stolen car, and the fact of pending charges against the witness involving possession of drugs with intent to sell. The error was thus harmless, both because of the overwhelming evidence, and because the jurors heard extensive testimony regarding the witness's criminal history and alleged bad acts. Further exploration of his youthful offender adjudication would have had no significant impact on their ability to properly assess the witness's general credibility ( see, People v Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, 560-561, affd 50 N.Y.2d 898, 899; see also, People v Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 28-29). In all other respects, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination to issues properly before the jury ( People v Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 201-202).

Defendant's current claim that he was unduly prejudiced by a police witness's inadvertent reference to defendant's "past criminal history" is unpreserved by appropriate and timely objection ( People v Roth, 157 A.D.2d 494, 495, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 924). In any event, as the reference was inadvertent, brief, and vague, the overwhelming evidence against defendant renders the error harmless ( People v Cook, 42 N.Y.2d 204, 208-209).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered defendant's additional claims of error and find each claim to be both unpreserved and without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Caines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 28, 1995
221 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Caines

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WESLEY CAINES…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

People v. Wooden

ing him following a jury trial of seven counts each of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 20.00, 130.35)…

People v. Mastin

The court likewise properly refused to admit the polygraph evidence ( see, People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217,…