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. David BYRD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered February 8, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to four concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). We decline to disturb the jury's findings concerning the reliability of the identification evidence.
Defendant's claim that the court's Sandoval ruling violated his right against self-incrimination by permitting the prosecutor to question him about his use of an alias in a pending criminal case is unpreserved for review (People v. Michalek, 82 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 609 N.Y.S.2d 172, 631 N.E.2d 114) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v. Roberts, 163 A.D.2d 120, 558 N.Y.S.2d 30, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 943, 563 N.Y.S.2d 72, 564 N.E.2d 682).
Also unpreserved is defendant's contention that the court improperly denied his request, made immediately prior to jury selection, for permission to call two alibi witnesses for whom timely alibi notice was not filed (People v. Gonzalez, 233 A.D.2d 190, 650 N.Y.S.2d 107). In any event, this request was properly denied, because defendant failed to provide any reasons establishing good cause for such untimeliness either on that occasion or on a previous date when he had unsuccessfully sought permission to file late notice (People v. Alvarez, 223 A.D.2d 401, 636 N.Y.S.2d 331, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 980, 649 N.Y.S.2d 386, 672 N.E.2d 612).
Defendant was not deprived of his right to counsel when the court instructed defense counsel to cease speaking aloud to defendant during its final charge (see, People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 417-418, 526 N.Y.S.2d 932, 521 N.E.2d 1075, cert. denied 487 U.S. 1239, 108 S.Ct. 2911, 101 L.Ed.2d 943; compare, People v. Joseph, 84 N.Y.2d 995, 622 N.Y.S.2d 505, 646 N.E.2d 807).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 22, 1997
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)