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. MAKESHA JIMMESON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[2] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to permit her to present evidence of a prior altercation involving defendant and the victim to demonstrate the character of defendant as well as that of the victim. We reject that contention. Character evidence “ ‘is strictly limited to testimony concerning the [party's] reputation’ “ in the community (People v. Mancini, 213 A.D.2d 1038, 1039, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 976; see People v. Kuss, 32 N.Y.2d 436, 443, rearg. denied 33 N.Y.2d 644, cert denied 415 U.S. 913), and thus “a character witness may not testify to specific acts” in order to establish character (Mancini, 213 A.D.2d at 1039; see People v. Ciccone, 90 AD3d 1141, 1144, lv denied 19 NY3d 863). The court also properly refused to allow defendant to present evidence of the prior altercation in order to impeach the trial testimony of two prosecution witnesses. “It is well established that the party who is cross-examining a witness cannot ․ call other witnesses to contradict a witness' answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purposes of impeaching that witness' credibility” (People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 288–289; see People v. Caswell, 49 AD3d 1257, 1258, lv denied 11 NY3d 735). Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review her present contention that evidence of the prior altercation was admissible to establish that she did not have a motive to assault the victim and that the two prosecution witnesses had a motive to fabricate their trial testimony (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Coapman, 90 AD3d 1681, 1683, lv denied 18 NY3d 956). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 08–01359
Decided: December 21, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)