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. Roman LEVITES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered July 1, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, 6 to 12 years and 4 to 8 years, respectively, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 23, 2003, which denied defendant's CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly allowed the prosecutor to elicit a prior statement of the victim which was recorded by the arresting officer in the on-line booking sheet. On cross-examination, defense counsel had questioned the arresting officer about several documents relating to the case, including the felony complaint, in which the officer had omitted any mention of a weapon. The inference counsel wanted the jury to draw from cross-examination was that the omissions of any mention of a gun indicated either that the victim had never said anything about a gun to the officer or that the officer was careless with his paperwork. Accordingly, the People were entitled on redirect examination to elicit both what the victim had told the officer about a gun and that the officer wrote in the on-line booking sheet that defendant may have had a gun (see People v. Boyd, 58 N.Y.2d 1016, 1018, 462 N.Y.S.2d 435, 448 N.E.2d 1346 [1983]; People v. Whitley, 14 A.D.3d 403, 406, 788 N.Y.S.2d 94 [2005], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 892, 798 N.Y.S.2d 737, 831 N.E.2d 982 [2005] ).
The record does not establish that defendant's sentence was based on any improper criteria, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
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: September 19, 2006
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)