Opinion
11630 Ind. 2993/14
06-11-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tramayer WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jose David Rodriguez Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eric Del Pozo of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jose David Rodriguez Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eric Del Pozo of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Kern, Oing, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered May 7, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court providently exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from cross-examining a Department of Correction captain about a pending disciplinary investigation. The allegations underlying the pending investigation involved a violation of Department policy that had no bearing on the officer's credibility, whether in general or in this case (see People v. Smith, 27 N.Y.3d 652, 36 N.Y.S.3d 861, 57 N.E.3d 53 [2016] ). Defendant's contention that the pending investigation provided the officer with a motive to fabricate in order to avoid further disciplinary exposure is speculative and unsupported (see People v. Howard, 158 A.D.3d 455, 455, 71 N.Y.S.3d 24 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1083, 79 N.Y.S.3d 104, 103 N.E.3d 1251 [2018] ).
The court also providently exercised its discretion in precluding defendant from introducing a Correction document that had no probative value under the circumstances of the case (see People v. Petty, 7 N.Y.3d 277, 286, 819 N.Y.S.2d 684, 852 N.E.2d 1155 [2006] ). To the extent the document at issue, a card, contained anything relevant, the same relevant fact was stipulated to by the parties. Defendant asserts that the card also contained a significant handwritten notation that was allegedly added after this incident as part of a coverup regarding the officers' use of force against defendant. However, by viewing the card, the jury would have had no way of determining whether the notation was placed on the card before or after the incident. Furthermore, defendant received a full opportunity to explore the issue of the notation on the card by way of cross-examination and summation.
Neither of the rulings at issue violated defendant's constitutional rights to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense. In any event, any constitutional or nonconstitutional error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included the testimony of multiple officers and corroborating photographic evidence (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ).