Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Odiot 242 A.D.2d 308

← Cases

People v. Odiot

242 A.D.2d 308 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1997-08-11 English

Contents

Majority

p. 308
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Demetrius Odiot, Appellant.
[661 NYS2d 969]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered May 22, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of a prosecution witness is not

p. 309
preserved for appellate review, since the grounds raised at trial differ from those raised on appeal (see, People v Qualls, 55 NY2d 733 ; People v Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501 ). In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the defendant’s cross-examination of the witness since the subject which the defense counsel sought to explore was collateral, and was not even relevant under the circumstances (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241 , cert denied 396 US 846 ; People v Daniels, 225 AD2d 632 ; People v Delcarpio, 221 AD2d 359 ; People v Taylor, 214 AD2d 757 ).

The defendant’s claim that the court erred in failing to give an accomplice-corroboration charge is also unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request such a charge, and failed to object to the charge as given (see, People v Lipton, 54 NY2d 340 ; People v Martin, 169 AD2d 784 ). In any event, while the failure of the court to give the charge sua sponte was an error under the facts of this case (see, People v Gonzales, 159 AD2d 721 ; People v Strawder, 124 AD2d 758 , 759), reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted since the testimony of other eyewitnesses to the crime independently and overwhelmingly established the defendant as the gunman (see, People v Ortiz, 215 AD2d 408 ; People v Winbush, 206 AD2d 556 ; People v Polhill, 190 AD2d 692 ; People v Martin, supra).

The sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cases cited