Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Felix CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J. at hearing, William Wetzel, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 17, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 3 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court improperly precluded defendant's cross-examination of a police witness about a statement in a felony complaint that had been prepared by the People and signed by the officer, since his in-court testimony flatly contradicted the description given in the complaint. On an analysis of the record, we find the error to be harmless.
The court properly allowed the People to introduce rebuttal evidence, which was not collateral, but which tended to overcome a specific fact that defendant had affirmatively sought to prove (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 248, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808). Even if we were to find that the court improperly allowed the People to emphasize a logo on a bag that was not in evidence, we would find any error to be harmless.
Defendant's request for access to the sealed warrant, affidavit and minutes has already been rejected by this Court in its determination of defendant's motion requesting similar relief, and there is no basis upon which to reach a different result at this time. Sealing of these materials in the interest of maintaining the informant's safety did not impair defendant's ability to litigate the suppression issue (see People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, 592 N.Y.S.2d 945, 607 N.E.2d 1050).
Defendant's sentence, which was the statutory minimum, did not constitute unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477, 480, 611 N.Y.S.2d 470, 633 N.E.2d 1074; People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, 371 N.Y.S.2d 471, 332 N.E.2d 338, cert. denied 423 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 372, 46 L.Ed.2d 287).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 07, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)