| People v Blair |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02960 [94 AD3d 1403] |
| April 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leslie Blair,Also Known as Jahman, Also Known as Dred, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.),rendered February 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder inthe second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, ofmurder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). Defendant contends that SupremeCourt improperly questioned him when he testified on his own behalf and that he was deprivedof a fair trial thereby. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see Peoplev Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887 [1982]). We conclude, in any event, that defendant'scontention is without merit. Indeed, the court properly acted within its power "to encourageclarity . . . in the development of proof," without giving any impression with respectto its own view of "the credibility of the testimony of any witness or the merits of any issue in thecase" (People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945 [1978]; see People v Arnold, 98NY2d 63, 67-68 [2002]). Defendant further contends that the court abused its discretion inoverruling defense counsel's objection concerning the scope of the redirect examination of awitness by the People. That contention lacks merit, inasmuch as defendant opened the door to theredirect examination by only partially exploring on cross-examination the issue whether thewitness and defendant had engaged in criminal activity together in the past, rendering furtherexamination and clarification on that issue appropriate (see People v Massie, 2 NY3d179, 183-184 [2004]; People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451 [1982]; People v AlvieJ., 286 AD2d 930, 931 [2001]).
Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the allegedlyimproper introduction of evidence of prior bad acts committed by him. In any event, we concludethat any error in the admission of that evidence is harmless (see generally People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). The evidence of defendant's guilt in assisting inthe murder is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwisewould have been acquitted (see id.; People v Orbaker, 302 AD2d 977, 977-978[2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 541 [2003]). The overwhelming evidence included the scarfrom a gunshot wound in the webbing between [*2]defendant'sthumb and forefinger, the gunshot wound to the right front of the victim's neck, and defendant'sadmission to an acquaintance following the shooting that he was holding down the victim whenthe gun wielded by another participant discharged (see generally People v Breland, 83NY2d 286, 292-293 [1994]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.