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, etc., respondent, v. Everett DOWNS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered April 7, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
The defendant's claim that he was denied the right to a public trial by the court's request that a 12-year old boy be removed from the courtroom is unpreserved for appellate review (cf. People v. Garcia, 95 N.Y.2d 946, 947, 727 N.Y.S.2d 1, 750 N.E.2d 1049; People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426, 660 N.Y.S.2d 858, 683 N.E.2d 764).
The trial court's restriction on certain areas of cross-examination which had the potential of misleading the jury or addressing collateral matters was a proper exercise of its discretion (see People v. Davis, 258 A.D.2d 528, 685 N.Y.S.2d 455; People v. Thorpe, 236 A.D.2d 641, 654 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Heung K. Sul, 234 A.D.2d 563, 652 N.Y.S.2d 57; People v. Delgado, 186 A.D.2d 579, 588 N.Y.S.2d 378). There is no merit to the defendant's claim that the trial court overstepped the boundaries of the proper exercise of its discretion, or in any way deprived him of a fair trial (cf. People v. Retamozzo, 25 A.D.3d 73, 802 N.Y.S.2d 426).
The defendant's contention regarding the prosecution's failure to give notice of a witness's intent to testify regarding a pretrial identification procedure pursuant to CPL 710.30 is without merit in light of the particular witness's inability to identify anyone during that procedure (see People v. Gee, 99 N.Y.2d 158, 161-162, 753 N.Y.S.2d 19, 782 N.E.2d 1155; see People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924; People v. Pennington, 27 A.D.3d 269, 811 N.Y.S.2d 36).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: November 14, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)