People v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clark

157 A.D.2d 842, 551 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 842 (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, 157 A.D.2d 842, 551 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered June 2, 1988, 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court responded accurately and meaningfully to the jury’s inquiry as to whether the defendant, during his trial testimony, placed one of the arresting officers at the scene of the arrest (see, CPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847; [843]*843People v Blanche, 152 AD2d 770). In any event, we conclude that any error arising out of the trial court’s answer to the jury’s inquiry did not unduly prejudice the defendant inasmuch as the trial court, in response to a subsequent request by the jury, read back the defendant’s entire trial testimony. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered June 2, 1988, 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.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court responded accurately and meaningfully to the jury’s inquiry as to whether the defendant, during his trial testimony, placed one of the arresting officers at the scene of the arrest (see, CPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847; [843]*843People v Blanche, 152 AD2d 770). In any event, we conclude that any error arising out of the trial court’s answer to the jury’s inquiry did not unduly prejudice the defendant inasmuch as the trial court, in response to a subsequent request by the jury, read back the defendant’s entire trial testimony. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 842, 551 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clark-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack