People v. Behling

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Behling

430 N.E.2d 910, 54 N.Y.2d 995, 446 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3183

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 29, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 430 N.E.2d 910 (People v. Behling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Behling, 430 N.E.2d 910, 54 N.Y.2d 995, 446 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3183 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

During defendant’s trial, the court ruled that the victim’s address should not be disclosed to the jury. Defense counsel made no objection to this ruling. After deliberating for two hours, the jury requested that it be supplied with the “area” of the victim’s residence, but the Trial Judge refused to reopen the case to admit any additional proof.

On the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by refusing to provide the jury with the location of the victim’s residence. This additional information, at best, related to that witness’ credibility. Furthermore, allowing this proof into evidence for the first time after the jury had entered into deliberations could have led to further disruptions of the progress of the trial. Finally, the record indicates that the victim’s residence originally was not disclosed at trial because he feared for the safety of his family. Under the circumstances, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the jury’s request for additional evidence. (See People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349; People v Ferrone, 204 NY 551.)

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and have found it to be without merit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

During defendant’s trial, the court ruled that the victim’s address should not be disclosed to the jury. Defense counsel made no objection to this ruling. After deliberating for two hours, the jury requested that it be supplied with the “area” of the victim’s residence, but the Trial Judge refused to reopen the case to admit any additional proof.

On the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by refusing to provide the jury with the location of the victim’s residence. This additional information, at best, related to that witness’ credibility. Furthermore, allowing this proof into evidence for the first time after the jury had entered into deliberations could have led to further disruptions of the progress of the trial. Finally, the record indicates that the victim’s residence originally was not disclosed at trial because he feared for the safety of his family. Under the circumstances, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the jury’s request for additional evidence. (See People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349; People v Ferrone, 204 NY 551.)

We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and have found it to be without merit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

430 N.E.2d 910, 54 N.Y.2d 995, 446 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-behling-ny-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack