Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Jones 7 A.D.3d 639

← Cases

People v. Jones

7 A.D.3d 639 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2004-05-10 English

Contents

Majority

p. 639
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilson Jones, Appellant.
[776 NYS2d 493]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J), rendered February 23, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that a witness for the Feople improperly bolstered the identification of the defendant in viola

p. 640
tion of the rule in People v Trowbridge ( 305 NY 471 [1953]), is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Higgins, 216 AD2d 487 [1995]). In any event, the contention is without merit, since the defendant’s identification was not a disputed issue at trial (see People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969 [1982]; People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 , 552 [1979]).

The defendant’s contention that a comment made by the trial court denigrated him is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886 , 887 [1982]; People v Smalls, 293 AD2d 500 [2002]). In any event, the comment was proper (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944 , 945-946 [1978]; People v White, 210 AD2d 446 [1994], affd sub nom. People v Kelly, 88 NY2d 248 [1996]), and at worse, harmless.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not excluded from a material stage of the trial (see CPL 260.20; People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18 , 26 [1996]; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 , 472 [1991]; People v Gopaul, 171 AD2d 754 , 755 [1991]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cases cited