| People v Elliot |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02781 [127 AD3d 779] |
| April 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Curtis Elliot, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellants.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, VictorBarall, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Dwyer, J.), rendered September 27, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the trial of the instant action the Supreme Court held a hearing to determinewhether the defendant had a good-faith basis to impeach the credibility of a police officerwitness by questioning him about his involvement in a police shooting that was unrelatedto the instant action. The defendant contends that the court violated his constitutionalrights to confront the witnesses against him, to present a defense, and to a fair trial when,at the hearing, it refused to require the officer to disclose the specific details of theincident and precluded the defendant from further cross-examination of the officer aboutthe incident, and when, after the hearing, it precluded the defendant fromcross-examining the officer about the incident at trial.
"A defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him throughcross-examination" (People v Middlebrooks, 300 AD2d 1142, 1143 [2002]). "Ingeneral, a 'witness may be interrogated upon cross-examination with respect to anyimmoral, vicious, or criminal acts which may affect his [or her] character and show [thewitness] to be unworthy of belief, provided the cross-examiner questions [the witness] ingood faith and upon a reasonable basis in fact' " (People v Brown, 103 AD3d912, 912-913 [2013], quoting Matter of Jerome D., 212 AD2d 699, 700[1995]; see People v Daley,9 AD3d 601, 602 [2004]).
Initially, since the defendant did not raise his constitutional claims at trial, hiscontentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Lopez, 82 AD3d1264, 1264 [2011]; Peoplev Haddock, 79 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2010]; People v Hamilton, 66 AD3d 921, 921-922 [2009]; People v Howell, 44 AD3d686, 687 [2007]). In any event, his contentions are without merit. The officer statedat the hearing that he had not been suspended or reprimanded in connection with theunrelated shooting, that no charges were pending against him, that he still had his gunand badge, that there had been no change in his duty status, and that the policedepartment had deemed the [*2]incident a "good shoot."Thus, nothing in the officer's statements at the hearing indicated that there might be areasonable basis in fact for a finding that he had engaged in any immoral, vicious, orcriminal act in connection with the shooting. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did notviolate the defendant's constitutional rights to confront the witnesses against him, topresent a defense, and to a fair trial when it, among other things, precluded furthercross-examination of the officer about the shooting. Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin andMaltese, JJ., concur.