| People v Robinson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06879 [110 AD3d 1010] |
| October 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Robinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco,Steven A. Bender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Hubert, J.), rendered February 17, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review two orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.
Ordered that upon the appeal from the judgment, the two orders of protection issuedat the time of sentencing are vacated; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court has broad discretion in restricting the scope of voir dire by counsel(see People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989]; People v Rodriguez, 240AD2d 683, 683 [1997]), and "[a] restriction on the time allotted for voir dire is generallypermissible where defense counsel is 'afford[ed] . . . a fair opportunity toquestion prospective jurors about relevant matters' " (People v Littlejohn, 92 AD3d 898, 899 [2012], quotingPeople v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745). Moreover, while "counsel has a right to inquireas to the qualifications of the veniremen [and venirewomen] and their prejudices so as toprovide a foundation for a challenge for cause or a peremptory challenge,. . . it is simply not the province of counsel to question prospective jurors asto their attitudes or knowledge of matters of law" (People v Boulware, 29 NY2d135, 141 [1971], cert denied 405 US 995 [1972] [citation omitted]). Here,contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the County Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in connection with the conduct of the voir direprocess (see People v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745; People v Littlejohn, 92AD3d at 898-899; People vThompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Rodriguez, 240 AD2dat 683).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
However, under the particular circumstances of this case, the County Courtimproperly issued orders of protection in favor of two witnesses who testified on behalfof the People at trial (see CPL 530.13 [4]). Accordingly, we vacate those ordersof protection. Eng, P.J., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.