Court Opinion

ID: 9877098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:46:23.772355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:18.149606
License: Public Domain

Whalen, P.J., and DeJoseph, J.
(concurring). We concur in the result reached by the majority but respectfully disagree with the conclusion that County Court properly allowed the People to impeach the credibility of their own witness, the victim’s girlfriend, using her grand jury testimony and her statement to police. In our view, the witness’s testimony at trial that she glanced at the vehicle involved in the shooting but did not see the driver or know who was driving was “merely neutral or unhelpful,” rather than affirmatively damaging, to the People’s case (People v Hampton, 73 AD3d 442, 443 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 895 [2011]; see People v Ayala, 121 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 987 [2015]; People v Griffiths, 247 AD2d 550, 552 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 852 [1998]; see generally CPL 60.35 [1]; People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44, 51-52 [1976]). “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event [or fact], whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” (People v Lawrence, 227 AD2d 893, 894 [1996]). People v Berry (27 NY3d 10 [2016], rearg dismissed 28 NY3d 1060 [2016]), relied upon by the majority, is distinguishable because the witness therein affirmatively damaged the People’s case by testifying that he did not see defendant at the scene of a shooting when it occurred, which was tantamount to an assertion that defendant was not present inasmuch as the witness had allegedly been standing with defendant immediately prior to the shooting (see id. at 13-15, 18). Here, in contrast, the witness’s claimed inability to identify the driver at trial failed to corroborate, but did not contradict, the People’s theory that the driver was defendant (see Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d at 52; Ayala, 121 AD3d at 1125; see generally People v Saez, 69 NY2d 802, 803-804 [1987]; People v James, 137 AD3d 1587, 1589 [2016]).
Nevertheless, we conclude that the court’s error in permitting the People to impeach the victim’s girlfriend is harmless. *1908As noted by the majority, the People’s evidence included a recorded 911 call in which the victim’s girlfriend identified defendant as the shooter and the testimony of an inmate witness that defendant admitted to the shooting. In addition, the inmate witness testified that defendant admitted that his brother had “paid off” the victim, and the People introduced recordings of telephone calls from jail tending to establish that defendant was trying to prevent the victim and the victim’s girlfriend from testifying. We therefore conclude that the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see People v Cartledge, 50 AD3d 1555, 1555-1556 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]; see also Saez, 69 NY2d at 804; People v Comer, 146 AD2d 794, 795 [1989], lv denied 73 NY2d 976 [1989]). We note that the jury would have been aware from the 911 call that the victim’s girlfriend had previously identified defendant even if the People had not been permitted to impeach her with her grand jury testimony and police statement.
Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, DeJoseph, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.