People
v.
Murray

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.Mar 7, 2013
960 N.Y.S.2d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
960 N.Y.S.2d 113104 A.D.3d 4262013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1462

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • People v. Valle

    …Thus, here, the Criminal Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding a Facebook post…

  • People v. Valle

    …Thus, here, the Criminal Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding a Facebook post…

lock 4 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

2013-03-7

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lonnie MURRAY, Defendant–Appellant.

Flora Edwards, New York, for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for respondent.



Flora Edwards, New York, for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ.


Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered October 19, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

To the extent defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, that claim is unpreserved and we declineto review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbingthe jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the extent to which a videotape contradicted the victim's testimony.

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant's cross-examination of the victim. Defendant received wide latitude to attack the victim's credibility by inquiring about disputes directly involving him. The court did not deprive defendant of the right to present a defense by precluding questions about matters not directly involving the victim, which would have had little or no relevance and would have invited speculation ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678–679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).

Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal ( see e.g. People v. Sunter, 57 A.D.3d 226, 227, 868 N.Y.S.2d 194 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 762, 876 N.Y.S.2d 714, 904 N.E.2d 851 [2009] ).

We find that the sentence was not excessive.