People v. Thompson

Nov 27, 2007
Reporters:
,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly rejected the defendant‘s argument that the indictment was barred by the statute of limitations (see CPL 30.10 [2] [b]), since he failed to make a timely motion to dismiss the indictment (see CPL 255.10 [1]; 255.20 [1]; People v Bones, 17 AD3d 689, 691 [2005]), and in any event, the argument was without merit (see People v Rosich, 170 AD2d 703 [1991]).

The County Court properly granted the People‘s unopposed application to take the then-96-year-old complainant‘s testimony at a conditional examination (see CPL 660.10 et seq.). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the videotape and transcript of the witness‘s testimony, including the defendant‘s lengthy cross-examination (see CPL 670.10 [1]; 670.20 [1]).

The defendant‘s Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) was properly denied. The reasons proffered by the prosecutor for the questioned peremptory challenges were race-neutral. The defendant failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating discrimination by showing that these reasons were pretextual (see People v Wells, 7 NY3d 51, 58 [2006]; People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003]; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104, 110 [1995]).

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in time-limiting the defense counsel‘s jury voir dire, since he was provided a fair opportunity to ask relevant and material questions (see CPL 270.15 [1] [c]; People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989]; People v Wheeler, 268 AD2d 448, 449 [2000]).

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the prosecutor‘s summation comments were, for the most part, proper (see People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 872 [1995]). In any event, the allegedly improper comments constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]).

The defendant‘s argument alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 151-152 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.