Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Radcliffe MEEKS, appellant.
Decided: November 25, 2008
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., ROBERT A. LIFSON, FRED T. SANTUCCI, and EDWARD D. CARNI, JJ.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered April 12, 2006, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and menacing in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in modifying its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) to allow the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about the underlying facts of his prior convictions. The defendant opened the door to such questioning by testifying to facts which conflicted with the previously-precluded evidence (see People v. Boyer, 31 A.D.3d 1136, 817 N.Y.S.2d 813; People v. Onorati, 15 A.D.3d 216, 217, 789 N.Y.S.2d 138; People v. Purcell, 268 A.D.2d 491, 703 N.Y.S.2d 492).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence three photographs of the victim's injuries is partially unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the admission of the first and third photographs (see CPL 470.05 ). In any event, the photographs were properly admitted to illustrate the testimony of the victim's treating physician and to aid in establishing the defendant's intent (see People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 836, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278; People v. Walsh, 294 A.D.2d 519, 520, 743 N.Y.S.2d 128; People v. Ponce, 213 A.D.2d 725, 624 N.Y.S.2d 283).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the prosecutor's summation (see CPL 470.05; People v. Wright, 182 A.D.2d 793, 586 N.Y.S.2d 221). In any event, the challenged remarks either were responsive to defense counsel's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or were harmless error (see People v. Gonzalez, 45 A.D.3d 696, 696–697, 845 N.Y.S.2d 817; People v. Pierre, 30 A.D.3d 622, 818 N.Y.S.2d 139).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.