People v Anjum (Mohammad)

[*1] People v Anjum (Mohammad) 2007 NY Slip Op 50782(U) [15 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on April 16, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 16, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, SCHOENFELD, JJ
570206/04.

People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Mohammad Anjum, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered January 15, 2004, after a jury trial, convicting him of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to a term of 3 years' probation.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered January 15, 2004, affirmed.

Defendant's present constitutional challenges to the court's preclusion of proposed demonstrative evidence are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no record support for defendant's assertions that the court deprived him of a fair trial or his right to present a defense. The court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to admit into evidence a crime scene reenactment and diagrams prepared by defendant. The conditions existing at the time of the crime were not accurately replicated in the proposed exhibits and there was no guarantee that cross-examination by the People would be sufficient to prevent this evidence from confusing and misleading the jury (see People v Moolenaar, 262 AD2d 60 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 826 [1999]). We note that defendant was permitted to utilize the prosecution's maps to demonstrate the relative positions of the vehicles and individuals involved in the altercation.

We perceive no basis for a modification of the sentence. The revocation of defendant's driver's license was an appropriate exercise of the court's sentencing discretion (see Penal Law 65.10[5]).

This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Decision Date: April 16, 2007