PEOPLE, res, v. HUSTON BELVETT, def-ap

9178. PEOPLE, res, v. HUSTON BELVETT, def-ap — Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (Michael J. Catiglione of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered February 2, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9178. PEOPLE, res, v. HUSTON BELVETT, def-ap — Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (Michael J. Catiglione of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered February 2, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court should have permitted cross-examination of two witnesses regarding whether they thought they could lose their New York City Housing Authority apartment based on drug-selling activity. Under the circumstances of the case, this line of inquiry was relevant to the witnesses’ alleged motives to give false testimony. However, the error was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]) including testimony from multiple witnesses to the crime, as well as evidence of actions and statements by defendant that undermined his claim of innocence. There is no reasonable possibility that the restriction on cross-examination affected the verdict. Furthermore, defendant received a full opportunity to impeach these witnesses with regard to other matters relating to credibility.

PEOPLE, res, v. HUSTON BELVETT, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal