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. Robert BOHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered October 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
There was legally sufficient evidence of guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations regarding the credibility and reliability of witnesses.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from calling a third alibi witness, since the defense concededly failed to give proper alibi notice pursuant to CPL 250.20 and since the People were deprived of the opportunity to conduct a proper investigation regarding any of the alibi testimony (see, 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's contention that the conditional examination of an incarcerated hospitalized witness in a communicable disease unit was conducted out of defendant's “presence” is unreviewable, defendant having failed to provide a sufficient record to establish that the special seating arrangements deprived him of the right to be present (see, People v. Brown, 221 A.D.2d 160, 638 N.Y.S.2d 427, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 898, 641 N.Y.S.2d 228, 663 N.E.2d 1258). In any event, the existing record establishes that defendant waived his right to be situated in closer proximity to the witness and counsel.
On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation. Counsel's alleged errors could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and conclude that the sentence was not based on any improper criteria.
We have reviewed and rejected defendant's remaining contentions.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: January 12, 1999
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)