People v. Sime

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered July 9, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, 25 years to life, 5 to 15 years, and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to counsel at his investigatory, non-court-ordered lineup (compare, People v Thomas, 76 NY2d 902 ) is unavailing since the attorney assigned to represent him on an unrelated case was given ample advance notice of the lineup, and a reasonable opportunity to attend, but declined to attend or to arrange for a substitute attorney (People v Hildago, 240 AD2d 170 , 171, lv denied 90 NY2d 1012 ; People v Jones, 223 AD2d 375 , lv denied 88 NY2d 849 ). Since the limited right to counsel at such a lineup only addresses the exclusion of existing counsel and does not require appointment of counsel at a defendant’s request (People v

Uncharged crime evidence jointly involving defendant and a People’s witness was properly admitted to explain the nature of their relationship so as to account for defendant’s sharing of highly incriminating information with the witness (see, People v Dauphinee, 240 AD2d 222 , lv denied 90 NY2d 892 ; People v Bernard, 224 AD2d 192 , 193, lv denied 88 NY2d 964 ). The court’s Sandoval ruling permitting elicitation of the same uncharged crime was a proper exercise of discretion.

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from introducing evidence of false pedigree information given by a deceased People’s witness whose Grand Jury testimony was received at trial upon a finding that defendant was responsible for the witness’s murder, since defendant, by his murderous conduct, concomitantly deprived the People of an opportunity to rehabilitate the witness (see, People v Cotto, 240 AD2d 193 , affd 92 NY2d 68 ; People v Geraci, 85 NY2d 359 , 366).

We have reviewed and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.