Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Howard 267 A.D.2d 1006

← Cases

People v. Howard

267 A.D.2d 1006 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1999-12-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1006
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt Howard, Appellant.
[700 NYS2d 899]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). We conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495) and that Supreme Court properly allowed the prosecutor to impeach defendant on cross-examination with suppressed statements made by defendant at the time of his arrest (see, People v Dansa, 172 AD2d 1011 , 1012, lv denied 78 NY2d 964 ). Defendant did not preserve for our review his contention that

Majority

p. 1007
the court violated CPL 310.30 by failing to disclose the contents of two jury notes (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). The court read the notes in open court before responding to them, and “[d]efendant did not lodge any objection to the manner of proceeding or the substance of the court’s responses” (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509 , 514; see, People v DePillo, 262 AD2d 996 , lv denied 93 NY2d 1044 ; People v Fontanez, 254 AD2d 762 , 763, lv denied 93 NY2d 852 ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the trial are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cases cited