People v. Bowen

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Bowen

409 N.E.2d 924, 50 N.Y.2d 915, 431 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2479

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 409 N.E.2d 924 (People v. Bowen) 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. Bowen, 409 N.E.2d 924, 50 N.Y.2d 915, 431 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2479 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Appellant tenders two issues. With respect to the first — the propriety of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant as to his failure at the time of his arrest to come forward with the exculpatory version of the episode to which he testified on trial — it appears that the issue is not preserved for our review inasmuch as no timely protest was registered.

As to the second — the propriety of the denial of defendant’s motion to preclude cross-examination with respect to the facts underlying a prior charge of reckless endangerment — there is nothing to warrant our disturbing the determination of the Appellate Division (cf. People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274). Any error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that this testimony should be considered for purposes of impeachment only was not preserved in view of the absence of any request for such instruction.

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 of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Appellant tenders two issues. With respect to the first — the propriety of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant as to his failure at the time of his arrest to come forward with the exculpatory version of the episode to which he testified on trial — it appears that the issue is not preserved for our review inasmuch as no timely protest was registered.

As to the second — the propriety of the denial of defendant’s motion to preclude cross-examination with respect to the facts underlying a prior charge of reckless endangerment — there is nothing to warrant our disturbing the determination of the Appellate Division (cf. People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274). Any error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that this testimony should be considered for purposes of impeachment only was not preserved in view of the absence of any request for such instruction.

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)

409 N.E.2d 924, 50 N.Y.2d 915, 431 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowen-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack