People v. Hendricks, 2 A.D.3d 1450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hendricks, 2 A.D.3d 1450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Reed (nyappdiv, 2017-06-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reed
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was denied the right to a fair trial when the prosecutor knowingly elicited false and misleading testimony from a police investigator with respect to a benefit that the victim would receive in exchange for the victim’s truthful testimony against defendant, and that the court erred in admitting that testimony (see People v Williams, 61 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 751 [2009]; People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kirk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that, “ ‘[i]n the face of a prosecutor’s knowledge that a witnesses] testimony denying that a promise of leniency was given is false, he or she has no choice but to correct the misstatement and to elicit the truth’ ” (People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004], quoting People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151, 162-163 [1979]; see People v Morrice, 61 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kirk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We agree with defendant that, “ ‘[i]n the face of a prosecutor’s knowledge that a witnesses] testimony denying that a promise of leniency was given is false, he or she has no choice but to correct the misstatement and to elicit the truth’ ” (People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004], quoting People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151, 162-163 [1979]; see People v Morrice, 61 AD3d 1390, 1391 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Golson (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Because he failed to object in a timely manner to the prosecutor’s failure to correct the testimony of a prosecution witness that she did not receive any benefit for her testimony, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People’s failure to correct that testimony deprived him of a fair trial (see People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that the prosecutor failed to correct the testimony of three witnesses that was allegedly inconsistent with their prior statements to the police (see People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]), and that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see People v Bork, 77 AD3d 1278 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morrice
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The prosecutor had an obligation to correct the misstatement of that witness but failed to do so (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 496-498 [1987]; People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]; People v Potter, 254 AD2d 831, 832 [1998]), and he compounded his misconduct in failing to correct the misstatement by telling the jury during summation that the witness was “getting nothing out of having testified in this case.” The prosecutor also engaged in misconduct when he questioned a police detective on direct examination with respect to defendant’s invocation o…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that reversal is required based on various alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct (see People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cornell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Neither the alleged Brady violation (see People v Harris, 1 AD3d 881 , 882 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 740 [2004]; People v Kelly, 309 AD2d 1149, 1151 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 575 [2003]) nor the prosecutorial misconduct contention (see People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 762 [2004]) has been preserved for our review.
The People of the State of New York
v.
Bobby Hendricks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 31, 2003.
2 A.D.3d 1450
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered November 18, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal[*1451] Law § 125.25 [3]) and two counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1], [2]). Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor failed to correct the testimony of a witness that she had not received a benefit in exchange for her testimony. The People disclosed in their response to defendant’s discovery demand that “the People have agreed to grant favorable treatment to [the witness], on a criminal misdemeanor charge in exchange for information regarding this investigation.” At trial, the witness testified that she had received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal on charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, but testified further that she had not received a benefit for the information she provided regarding the charges against defendant. The prosecutor should have corrected that testimony based on the People’s discovery response indicating that the adjournment in contemplation of dismissal had in fact been granted in exchange for the witness’s information (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 496-497 [1987]; People v LaDolce, 196 AD2d 49, 56 [1994]). “[I]n the face of a prosecutor’s knowledge that a witnesses] testimony denying that a promise of leniency was given is false, he or she has no choice but to correct the misstatement and to elicit the truth” (People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151, 162-163 [1979], citing People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 557 [1956]). However, defendant failed to object or to seek sanctions when the witness testified differently from what was disclosed in the People’s discovery demand. Thus, the issue is not preserved for our review (see People v Bryant, 298 AD2d 845, 846 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 556 [2002]). In any event, the error is harmless (see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1, 8-9 [1993]).

We further conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in its Sandoval and Ventimiglia rulings (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). The evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction, and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 139 [2002]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Pigott Jr., P.J, Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.