| People v Shields |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08062 [100 AD3d 549] |
| November 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EricShields, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent,v Kenneth Law, Appellant. |
—[*1] Yalkut & Israel, Bronx (Arlen S. Yalkut of counsel), for Kenneth Law, appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Timothy C. Stone of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered September 21,2010, as amended September 23, 2010, convicting defendant Kenneth Law, after a jury trial, ofenterprise corruption, scheme to defraud in the first degree, conspiracy in the fifth degree, grandlarceny in the first degree and five counts of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in theinterest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentences on the enterprise corruption convictionand all larceny convictions to terms of 3 to 9 years, resulting in a new aggregate term of 3 to 9years, and otherwise affirmed. Judgment, same court, Justice and dates, convicting defendantEric Shields, after a jury trial, of enterprise corruption, scheme to defraud in the first degree,conspiracy in the fifth degree, grand larceny in the first degree and three counts of grand larcenyin the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5½ to 16½ years,unanimously affirmed.
The verdicts as to both defendants were based on legally sufficient evidence and were notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). The jury could have reasonably foundthat the accomplice testimony was both credible and adequately corroborated, and that theevidence established defendants' participation in the fraudulent transactions with knowledge oftheir fraudulent nature.[*2]
In this lengthy, multidefendant trial, the court properlyexercised its discretion when it imposed reasonable limits on cross-examination. Defendantswere not deprived of their rights to present a defense and to confront witnesses (see Delawarev Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678 [1986]). The court permitted defendants to delve into allappropriate subject matters, and only precluded questioning that was cumulative, excessivelylengthy, speculative, improper in form, or of questionable relevance. Defendants were permittedto conduct effective cross-examinations, and were not prejudiced by the court's limitations,which did not interfere with their ability "to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as thesole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability ofthe witnesses" (Davis v Alaska, 415 US 308, 318 [1974]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence the summary chartsprepared by the People's investigator. The charts assisted the jury in evaluating the voluminousevidence, and the alleged defects in the charts did not affect their admissibility. The courtcarefully instructed the jury that the charts were not independent evidence, but were valid onlyinsofar as the jury concluded that they were accurately based on the evidence in the record(see e.g. United States v Casamento, 887 F2d 1141, 1151 [2d Cir 1989], certdenied 493 US 1081 [1990]). Given the limited role of these charts, the court's restrictions ondefendants' cross-examination of the investigator who prepared the charts were appropriate andnonprejudicial.
There is no support for the claim that the People introduced evidence that they knew orshould have known was false.
The court properly denied defendant Law's motion to sever his case from that of hiscodefendants (see CPL 200.40 [1] [d] [iii]). Evidence relating to the acts of thecodefendants was admissible against defendant and necessary to prove the charged offenses, anddefendant did not establish good cause for a severance (see People v Council, 52 AD3d 222 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied11 NY3d 735 [2008]).
We find defendant Law's sentence excessive to the extent indicated. We perceive no basis forreducing defendant Shields's sentence.
Defendants' remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.