From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sawyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-02038

Submitted March 6, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered February 15, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Bonnie C. Brennan of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Donna Aldea of counsel; Daniel Bresnahan on the brief), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of a detective regarding a purported motive to fabricate. While proof tending to establish a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, such proof may be excluded when it is too remote and speculative (see People v. Hoover, 298 A.D.2d 599).

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to present a defense because the trial court precluded certain questions regarding the detective's investigation of the crime. The defendant had the opportunity to fully explore the detective's alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation and the few questions which were not permitted were either repetitive or improperly called for speculative answers (see People v. Devers, 296 A.D.2d 343; People v. Goodman, 280 A.D.2d 611).

Finally, the trial court properly refused to admit into evidence the criminal court complaint containing prior inconsistent statements of the detective since the defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for its admission (see People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 U.S. 910; People v. Sutton, 209 A.D.2d 456). The defendant's contention that any attempt to lay a foundation would have been futile is speculative.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sawyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Sawyer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. WILLIAM SAWYER, a/k/a JOHN WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 766

Citing Cases

Strzelecki v. Cunningham

The Appellate Court rejected this argument, holding that the trial court had "not improvidently exercise[d]…

People v. Strzelecki

A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to produce witnesses, and “absent a showing of bad faith, an…