People v Nelson

People v Nelson 2011 NY Slip Op 07703 Decided on November 1, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 1, 2011
Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
5881 3605/07

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jahmal Nelson, Defendant-Appellant.




Wilens & Baker, P.C., New York (Daniel S. Kratka of
counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Marc A. Sherman
of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J. at suppression hearing; Darcel Clark, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered June 4, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. In finding a lawful search and seizure, the court credited the testimony of the police witnesses and not that of the defense witnesses. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations (see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

At the hearing, the prosecutor extensively cross-examined a defense witness about his criminal history and prior bad acts. The court's rulings on the scope of that cross-examination were proper exercises of discretion. In any event, there is no reasonable possibility that any errors in this regard affected the suppression ruling.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting defendant's attempt to impeach the credibility of the police witnesses by way of extrinsic evidence. In any event, any error in this ruling was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the relative insignificance of the excluded evidence. Moreover, despite the court's ruling, defendant was able to elicit some of the excluded evidence from a defense witness.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 1, 2011

CLERK