People v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clark

74 A.D.2d 581, 424 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10219

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 581 (People v. Clark) 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. Clark, 74 A.D.2d 581, 424 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered November 15, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The introduction of impeachment evidence that, at the time of defendant’s arrest, he failed to relate to the arresting officer the exculpatory version of events to which he testified at trial, was error (see Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610). However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, defense counsel’s failure to make timely objections, and the court’s curative instructions given both after the evidence in question was admitted and in its final charge, we find this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see [582]*582People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf. People v Conyers, 49 NY2d 174). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, 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, Westchester County, rendered November 15, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The introduction of impeachment evidence that, at the time of defendant’s arrest, he failed to relate to the arresting officer the exculpatory version of events to which he testified at trial, was error (see Doyle v Ohio, 426 US 610). However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, defense counsel’s failure to make timely objections, and the court’s curative instructions given both after the evidence in question was admitted and in its final charge, we find this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see [582]*582People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf. People v Conyers, 49 NY2d 174). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 581, 424 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clark-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack