SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

310 

KA 08-00865 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LESLIE BLAIR, ALSO KNOWN AS JAHMAN, ALSO KNOWN 

AS DRED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David

D. Egan, J.), rendered February 15, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law §

125.25 [3]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly

questioned him when he testified on his own behalf and that he was

deprived of a fair trial thereby. Defendant failed to preserve that

contention for our review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887). 

We conclude, in any event, that defendant’s contention is without

merit. Indeed, the court properly acted within its power “to

encourage clarity . . . in the development of proof,” without giving

any impression with respect to its own view of “the credibility of the

testimony of any witness or the merits of any issue in the case”

(People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945; see People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63,

67-68). Defendant further contends that the court abused its

discretion in overruling defense counsel’s objection concerning the

scope of the redirect examination of a witness by the People. That

contention lacks merit, inasmuch as defendant opened the door to the

redirect examination by only partially exploring on cross-examination

the issue whether the witness and defendant had engaged in criminal

activity together in the past, rendering further examination and

clarification on that issue appropriate (see People v Massie, 2 NY3d

179, 183-184; People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451; People v Alvie J.,

286 AD2d 930, 931). 

Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his
-2- 310 

KA 08-00865 

contention concerning the allegedly improper introduction of evidence

of prior bad acts committed by him. In any event, we conclude that

any error in the admission of that evidence is harmless (see generally

People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). The evidence of defendant’s

guilt in assisting in the murder is overwhelming, and there is no

significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been

acquitted (see id.; People v Orbaker, 302 AD2d 977, 977-978, lv denied

100 NY2d 541). The overwhelming evidence included the scar from a

gunshot wound in the webbing between defendant’s thumb and forefinger,

the gunshot wound to the right front of the victim’s neck, and

defendant’s admission to an acquaintance following the shooting that

he was holding down the victim when the gun wielded by another

participant discharged (see generally People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286,

292-293).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court