| People v Hill |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00530 [47 AD3d 838] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lanette Hill, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and John McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Rosenzweig, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting her of robbery in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the Supreme Court's Sandovalruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v Siriani, 27 AD3d670 [2006]). In any event, the defendant testified that she pleaded guilty in a previous casebecause she was, in fact, guilty, thereby implying that her failure to plead guilty to the currentcharges should be taken as proof of her innocence, thereby opening the door tocross-examination exploring her true motivation for the prior plea of guilty (see People vCooper, 92 NY2d 968, 969 [1998]; People v Marable, 33 AD3d 723, 725 [2006]). Under thesecircumstances, the prosecutor's line of questioning did not exceed the scope of the court'sSandoval ruling (see People v Marable, 33 AD3d at 725; People vPearson, 282 AD2d 692 [2001]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly challenged her to characterize thePeople's witnesses as liars is without merit. While prosecutors repeatedly have been cautioned bythis Court to avoid pressuring a testifying defendant into characterizing the People's witnesses asliars (see e.g. People v Gonzalez, 15AD3d 594 [2005]; People vLawrence, 4 AD3d 436, 437 [2004]; People v [*2]Berrios, 298 AD2d 597 [2002]; People v Smith, 199AD2d 439, 440 [1993]), a prosecutor is entitled to ask the defendant whether the witnesses hadbeen mistaken in their testimony or whether the witnesses' testimony was not true where, as here,the defendant's testimony is in direct conflict with that of the People's witnesses (see People v Bradley, 38 AD3d793, 794 [2007]; People v Swails, 250 AD2d 503 [1998]; People v Overlee,236 AD2d 133, 139 [1997]).
The defendant's contention that two police officers were improperly permitted to givetestimony that bolstered the testimony of the complainants is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v Shankle, 37 AD3d742, 743 [2007]; People vCruz, 31 AD3d 660, 661 [2006]). In any event, the officers' testimony did not constituteimpermissible bolstering of the complainant's identification testimony (see People v Mendoza, 35 AD3d507 [2006]; People v Nealy, 32AD3d 400, 402 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, she was not deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel (see People v Schulz, 4NY3d 521, 531 [2005]; People vGreen, 41 AD3d 862 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Lifson and Carni, JJ., concur.