People v. Guy, 223 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
People v. Guy, 223 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Johnson (nyappdiv, 2012-01-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Instead, the purpose of the questions pertaining to the inmate’s criminal history was to mitigate the damaging effect this information would have had if elicited on cross-examination (see People v Alcantara, 78 AD3d 721, 722 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 827 [2011]; People v Guy, 223 AD2d 723, 724 [1996]). 2 In any event, even if the testimony constituted improper impeachment, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see People v Saez, 69 NY2d at 804 ; People v West, 85 AD3d 1393, 1394 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 905 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Nunez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, the information was only sought to discredit the witness, and not to “mitigate the more damaging effect” such revelation “would have ... if elicited on cross-examination” (People v Alcantara, 78 AD3d 721, 722 [2010]; see People v Guy, 223 AD2d 723, 724 [1996]; People v Minsky, 227 NY 94, 98 [1919]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Corinthian Guy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 29, 1996.
223 A.D.2d 723
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 620
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), rendered March 23, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court erred when it prohibited the defense counsel from questioning the defendant concerning certain prior false state-[*724] merits he had given the police that were inconsistent with his trial testimony. Although it is well settled that a party may not impeach his or her own witness (see, Becker v Koch, 104 NY 394; Richardson, Evidence § 6-424 [Farrell 11th ed]), the intent here was not to impeach the witness. Rather, the statements were to be elicited to mitigate the more damaging effect they would have if elicited on cross-examination by the prosecutor and to permit the defendant a chance to explain why he had made the false statements in the first instance (cf., Richardson, Evidence § 509 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Minsky, 227 NY 94). However, based on the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Indeed, the defendant’s prior statements were less inculpatory than his trial testimony and he was afforded an opportunity to explain his reasons for making them on redirect examination.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.