From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wongshing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).


The court properly exercised its discretion in curtailing defense counsel's questioning of prospective jurors concerning their ability to fairly evaluate a defendant's decision not to testify since counsel's questioning was repetitious, concerned the jurors' knowledge of the law and since the court provided detailed instructions as to the applicable principles and then obtained assurances that the jurors would follow the law as it was charged ( see, People v. Boulware, 29 N.Y.2d 135, cert denied 405 U.S. 995; compare, People v. Porter, 226 A.D.2d 275).

Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Since defendant did not seek to reopen the Wade hearing based on evidence elicited at trial, we may not consider such evidence in reviewing the propriety of the suppression determination ( People v. Nieves, 205 A.D.2d 173, 184, affd 88 N.Y.2d 618). In any event, there is nothing to indicate that either the array or lineup were arranged in a way that singled out defendant or that the complainant was somehow prompted by the police to select him ( see, People v. Santiago, 221 A.D.2d 249, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 925). The court properly exercised its discretion by refusing defendant's request to present a voice exemplar to disprove the identifications made of him since the victim's identification was based on factors other than defendant's alleged Caribbean accent and thus, any probative value of the proposed exemplar was outweighed by its potential to mislead the jury or to unfairly prejudice the prosecution ( see, People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769).

The court properly refused to accept defendant's guilty plea to the indictment after jury selection had been completed since he denied knowledge of the crime and the court did not satisfy itself that the plea was knowingly and intelligently made ( People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 235, cert denied 419 U.S. 1122).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Wongshing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Wongshing

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILTON WONGSHING…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 166

Citing Cases

People v. Peterkin

s to create the substantial likelihood that defendant would be misidentified'" ( People v Johnson, 52 AD3d…

People v. Mitchell

Indeed, after refusing to accept the plea, the hearing court specifically invited defendant to make the same…