From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sherrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1997
240 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.).


The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Indeed, the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. The accomplice's testimony supplying the details of defendant's criminal conduct was amply corroborated by other evidence, consisting of identification testimony by two witnesses, "tending to connect" defendant with the crime (CPL 60.22).

The court properly allowed limited testimony regarding the female victim's prior identification of defendant from a photographic array, since defense counsel had opened the door to such testimony by suggesting that her in-court identification of defendant was a recent fabrication ( see, People v. Jones, 223 A.D.2d 375, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 849; People v. Francis, 123 A.D.2d 714).

The court's Allen charge was not coercive. Defendant's challenge to the lineup identification is unpreserved and without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Sherrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1997
240 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Sherrod

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEON SHERROD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 618

Citing Cases

People v. Jones

862, 832 N.Y.S.2d 466, 864 N.E.2d 596 ), a defendant may open the door to evidence of such an identification…

People v. Jones

ontrary to defendant's further contention, the court's statements regarding reopening the proof were correct.…