People v. Banks
905 N.Y.S.2d 627
N.Y. App. Div.
2010
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v JOEL BEECHAM, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department

904 N.Y.S.2d 727

Zambelli, J.

Panel: Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered October 9, 2007, convicting him of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree (three counts), assault in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding, after a Frye hearing (see

), expert testimony on the effects of stress and cross-race bias on eyewitness identification. The defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the proposed testimony was based on principles that are generally accepted in the scientific community (see
).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either failed to object to the comments or made only general objections, and did not request further curative instructions or move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2];

). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see
;
).

The County Court also providently exercised its discretion in declining to impose any sanction against the People for the loss of alleged Rosario material (see

, cert denied
). The defendant failed to articulate a factual basis for the assertion that the alleged Rosario material existed (see
;
;
).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it was not improper for the prosecutor to elicit testimony on redirect examination that the witness had previously identified the defendant from a photographic array. Such testimony is appropriate when, as here, the defendant opens the door to this type of inquiry during cross-examination of the witness (see

;
;
).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see

), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see
).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.