| People v Powell |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 07461 [166 AD3d 660] |
| November 7, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Howard Powell, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Steven R. Bernhard and Kendra Hutchinson ofcounsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Ira H. Margulis, J.), rendered November 6, 2014, and December 15, 2014, respectively,both under indictment No. 1905/10, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon ajury verdict, and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, after a hearing,the defendant's motion to present certain proposed expert testimony on the topic of falseconfessions (see People vBedessie, 19 NY3d 147, 161 [2012]; People v Iqbal, 147 AD3d 782, 782-783 [2017]; People v Kaye, 137 AD3d938, 940 [2016]). "As a general rule, the admissibility and limits of expert testimonylie primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court" (People v Lee, 96 NY2d157, 162 [2001]). With regard to expert testimony on the phenomenon of falseconfessions, in order to be admissible, "the expert's proffer must be relevant to the[particular] defendant and interrogation before the court" (People v Bedessie, 19NY3d at 161). Here, the defendant failed to establish that his proffered expert testimonywas relevant to the specific circumstances of this case (see id.; People vIqbal, 147 AD3d at 782-783).
Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting theprosecution to cross-examine the defendant regarding certain uncharged crimes and topresent rebuttal evidence. The defendant testified during his direct testimony to the effectthat he involuntarily confessed after a lengthy interrogation to robbing the victim.Contrary to the defendant's contention, his direct testimony "opened the door" for thePeople to elicit evidence that the interrogation was lengthy because the defendant wasalso questioned by detectives regarding five other unsolved robberies, in which thedefendant either denied involvement or in which the defendant's statements to thedetectives were not useful. In addition to explaining the length of the interrogation, therebuttal evidence was relevant to counter the defendant's claim of coercion (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 416-430 [2004]; People v Ward, 106 AD3d 842, 842-843 [2013]). In anyevent, any error in this regard was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 241-242 [1975]).
[*2] In light of ourdetermination, the defendant's remaining contention has been rendered academic.Scheinkman, P.J., Mastro, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.