People v. Blakeney, 671 N.E.2d 1269 (N.Y. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Blakeney, 671 N.E.2d 1269 (N.Y. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Jones (nyappdiv, 1998-04-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court initially properly allowed cross-examination of defendant with respect to his use of an alias (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 461-462 ), and, when defendant thereafter testified falsely regarding use of the alias, the court properly modified its Sandoval ruling to allow questioning concerning that false testimony (see, People v Hunter, 235 AD2d 378 , lv denied 89 NY2d 1094 ; see also, People v Blakeney, 88 NY2d 1011 ; People v Mayea, 226 AD2d 280 , lv denied 88 NY2d 1022 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Lorenzo Blakeney, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 19, 1996.
671 N.E.2d 1269
1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2724
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York City (Douglas W. Henkin of counsel), E. Joshua Rosenkrantz and Paul Skip Laisure for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (David L. Jaffe and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On November 4, 1992, defendant Lorenzo Blakeney was arrested with codefendant Shakira Fleming for allegedly selling crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. Twelve days later, on November 16, 1992, defendant was again arrested with Fleming for allegedly committing the nearly identical offense at almost the identical location.

After a jury trial, Supreme Court found defendant guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment from a minimum of five and one-half years to a maximum of eleven years. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed. We now affirm.

Defendant’s claim that he had never seen or known Fleming before his arrest on November 4, 1992, when the arresting officer directed that she be brought to stand next to defendant, opened the door to evidence tending to disprove his account. Thus, it rendered the People’s questions regarding the subsequent arrest with Fleming on November 16, 1992 relevant for "contradiction and response” with respect to the November 4, 1992 existence of their relationship and not simply to impeach his general credibility (see, People v Betts, 70 NY2d 289, 295). The courts below did not err in holding that the defense counsel’s conduct during summation was not incompetent (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799-800). Defendant’s claims that Supreme Court displayed prosecutorial bias and impermissibly shifted the burden of proof away from the People in the jury charge are unpreserved for this Court’s review.

The defendant’s remaining claims have been considered and are without merit.

[*1013] Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.