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. Paul Harris, appellant.
Argued—October 31, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 21, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to impeach their own witness with prior inconsistent statements contained in that witness's grand jury testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Jones, 25 AD3d 724, 725). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. In his grand jury testimony, the witness testified that he saw the defendant at the crime scene at the time of the shooting with a gun in his hand, and that the defendant shot him. However, at trial, the witness testified that he did not see the defendant at the crime scene. “Thus, the eyewitness's trial testimony tended to disprove the People's case and affirmatively damaged the People's position” (People v. Jones, 25 AD3d at 725). Accordingly, the trial court properly allowed the People to impeach the witness pursuant to CPL 60.35 with his grand jury testimony (see id.; People v. Broomfield, 163 A.D.2d 403, 403–404; People v. Magee, 128 A.D.2d 811, 811; cf. People v. Fitzpatrick, 40 N.Y.2d 44, 51).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DICKERSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2011–11308 (Ind.No. 6247 /09)
Decided: December 11, 2013
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)