People v. Bunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bunn

63 A.D.2d 1031, 406 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12124

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 26, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 1031 (People v. Bunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bunn, 63 A.D.2d 1031, 406 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 5, 1976, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, [1032]*1032and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts. On redirect examination the complainant testified, over defense objections, to conversations she had with two witnesses who did not testify at the trial, which conversations implicated the defendant in the crime. That constituted improper redirect examination since, contrary to the People’s assertion, the door had not been opened for such testimony by defense counsel’s cross-examination of the complainant. Moreover, the testimony was hearsay in nature and violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. We find that the error was prejudicial and that a new trial is required. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 5, 1976, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, [1032]*1032and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts. On redirect examination the complainant testified, over defense objections, to conversations she had with two witnesses who did not testify at the trial, which conversations implicated the defendant in the crime. That constituted improper redirect examination since, contrary to the People’s assertion, the door had not been opened for such testimony by defense counsel’s cross-examination of the complainant. Moreover, the testimony was hearsay in nature and violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. We find that the error was prejudicial and that a new trial is required. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 1031, 406 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bunn-nyappdiv-1978.