People v Steward
2010 NY Slip Op 03156 [72 AD3d 524]
April 20, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Owen Steward, Appellant.

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee ofcounsel), and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Christina M. McGill ofcounsel), for appellant.

Owen Steward, appellant pro se.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Timothy C. Stone of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered April 26, 2007,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery inthe second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution ofinconsistencies in testimony.

The court properly allowed testimony by the victims identifying defendant as a persondepicted in surveillance videos. This testimony was likely to aid the jurors in determiningwhether defendant was in fact shown in the video, as there was evidence that defendant hadchanged his appearance after the crime by altering his hairstyle (see People v Russell, 79NY2d 1024 [1992]; People v Rivera, 259 AD2d 316 [1999]). Defendant's relatedargument concerning a detective's testimony is without merit.

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a properexercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]).

The record refutes defendant's claim that he received inadequate time to question thepanelists about his right not to testify at trial and the principle of accomplice liability. In thisregard we note the court's own extensive preliminary examination covering these matters.Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a time limit on initial voir dire[*2]questioning by the prosecutor and defense counsel (seePeople v Jean, 75 NY2d 744 [1989]; People v Rodriguez, 184 AD2d 317, 318-319[1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 909 [1992]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman,Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.