People v. Booker

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Booker

406 N.E.2d 1062, 49 N.Y.2d 989, 429 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2346

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 406 N.E.2d 1062 (People v. Booker) 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. Booker, 406 N.E.2d 1062, 49 N.Y.2d 989, 429 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2346 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. Our examination of the record shows that defendant’s motion to suppress the gun was not premised upon the failure to provide warnings in accordance with the mandate of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436). This argument is not one which constitutes a question of law reviewable in this court despite the failure to timely raise the issue (compare People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, with People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1). Hence, defendant’s failure to preserve this issue for review precludes his reliance upon it upon this appeal and prevents our consideration of the merits of his argument with respect to the alleged illegality of the seizure of the gun and its effect upon the subsequent statement.

As to defendant’s claim that the court erred in not granting his motion for a mistrial when it became evident that one of the witnesses for the prosecution could not be subjected to intensive cross-examination because of her physical condition, we conclude that the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard her testimony altogether sufficed in the circumstances of [991]*991this case to avoid any violation of defendant’s right of confrontation.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. Our examination of the record shows that defendant’s motion to suppress the gun was not premised upon the failure to provide warnings in accordance with the mandate of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436). This argument is not one which constitutes a question of law reviewable in this court despite the failure to timely raise the issue (compare People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, with People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1). Hence, defendant’s failure to preserve this issue for review precludes his reliance upon it upon this appeal and prevents our consideration of the merits of his argument with respect to the alleged illegality of the seizure of the gun and its effect upon the subsequent statement.

As to defendant’s claim that the court erred in not granting his motion for a mistrial when it became evident that one of the witnesses for the prosecution could not be subjected to intensive cross-examination because of her physical condition, we conclude that the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard her testimony altogether sufficed in the circumstances of [991]*991this case to avoid any violation of defendant’s right of confrontation.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 1062, 49 N.Y.2d 989, 429 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-booker-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack