PEOPLE v. JIMENEZ

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. In addition to testimony from two of defendant's co-conspirators, there was a wealth of evidence, including narcotics records and intercepted conversations, to prove that defendant conspired to possess and sell numerous kilograms of cocaine.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it advised a witness about the possible legal consequences of giving self-incriminating testimony regarding a murder unrelated to the conspiracy in question, and instructed the jury that it could utilize the witness's invocation of his right to refuse to answer questions related to the murder in assessing his credibility (People v. Siegel, 87 N.Y.2d 536). Contrary to defendant's claim, such questions pertained to a collateral matter and the court appropriately chose the least drastic alternative of giving a limiting instruction rather than striking the testimony of the witness.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.