Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pat CLEMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: February 25, 1999

SULLIVAN, J.P., NARDELLI, WALLACH and TOM, JJ. Susan Gliner, for Respondent. James E. Newman, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered January 11, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

 Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied.   The detective's hearing testimony amply supported the court's finding that the eyewitness, who had played basketball with defendant for several years and knew him by his nickname, was sufficiently acquainted with defendant such that his photo identification of him was confirmatory and that further inquiry was unwarranted (see, People v. Small, 201 A.D.2d 315, 607 N.Y.S.2d 291, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 876, 613 N.Y.S.2d 137, 635 N.E.2d 306).   The hearing court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of this detective and in precluding the calling of additional witnesses insofar as none of the information sought to be elicited related to the eyewitness's acquaintance with defendant.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.   We find that the record supports the jury's credibility determinations (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 By failing to object, or by failing to make timely and specific objections, defendant has failed to preserve his challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged comments were responsive to the defense summation and do not warrant reversal (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724).

 We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.


Copied to clipboard