People v. Williams

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered August 10, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly permitted the prosecutor to bolster a witness’s prior in-court identification of the defendant with the testimony of a police officer, on redirect examination, is without merit. Where the opposing party, inter alia, opens the door on cross-examination to matters not touched upon on direct examination, a party has the right on redirect examination to explain, clarify, and fully elicit a question only partially examined on cross-examination. Where only part of a statement has been brought out on cross-examination, the other parts may be introduced on redirect examination for the purpose of explaining or clarifying the statement (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445 , 451-452 [1982]). Thus, it was proper for the prosecutor to elicit from the police officer, on redirect examination, the portions of the eyewitness’s statement that were not introduced on cross-examination.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Feliciano, 302 AD2d 474 [2003]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 , 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit. Miller, J.P, Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.