People v. Burrus

182 A.D.2d 634, 582 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5708
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 6, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 634 (People v. Burrus) 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. Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634, 582 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered May 23, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in admitting testimony of the description of the perpetrator contained in a radio report overheard by the arresting officer. The challenged testimony was properly admitted to explain the officer’s presence at the scene and to avoid speculation by the jury (see, People v Love, 92 AD2d 551, 553; People v Switzer, 115 AD2d 673, 674). The court’s clear instructions to the jury that the contents of the radio report were not [635]*635admitted to establish their truth, but only to explain why the officer "was in a particular place at a particular time” and its admonition that the jury disregard any details in the radio report except insofar as it explained the officer’s presence at the scene, effectively eliminated any risk of prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Love, supra, at 553).

The testimony of a defense witness implied that a police officer had illegally or unlawfully obtained the gun which was produced in evidence with the objective of securing the defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it permitted the People to introduce rebuttal evidence on that point (see, People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047; Richardson, Evidence § 517 [Prince 10th ed]). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Anderson
2017 NY Slip Op 1558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Severino
44 A.D.3d 1077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Nanton
18 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Baez
7 A.D.3d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Flournoy
303 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Stephens
274 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Isaac
222 A.D.2d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Burrell
216 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Martin
216 A.D.2d 329 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Gill
215 A.D.2d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Pledger
215 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Bennett
209 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Estrada
187 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 A.D.2d 634, 582 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burrus-nyappdiv-1992.