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. Cachin ANDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered January 11, 2013, as amended March 13, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence supports the conclusion that although defendant actually stabbed the victim in the leg, defendant was also trying, with homicidal intent, to stab him in the chest.
The court's ruling prohibiting impeachment of the victim through questions regarding his immigration status fell within the court's wide latitude to place reasonable limits on cross-examination and did not deprive defendant of his right of confrontation (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678–679 [1986] ). The victim was legally in the United States at the time of the incident, and it appears that a problem about his status, not necessarily impacting his credibility, arose thereafter and was under review at the time of the trial. There is no reason to believe that the victim's immigration status gave him a motive to fabricate his accusation of defendant, or that defendant was prejudiced by the limitation on cross-examination.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion, based on a remark in the prosecutor's summation for which the court had provided a suitable curative instruction. Defendant's remaining challenges to arguments by the prosecutor are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976 [1998]; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884 [1993] ).
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: March 22, 2016
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)