People v. Confer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Confer

73 A.D.2d 785, 423 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14650

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 1979·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The limited use permitted defense counsel of the police report in this case when he sought to examine prior written statements of the prosecution witnesses for purposes of cross-examination was an error under People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286). We find, however, that there is no reasonable possibility that this error might have contributed to the conviction and that it was, therefore, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman v California, 386 US 18; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court—burglary, third degree, etc.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Witmer and Moule, JJ.

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

unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The limited use permitted defense counsel of the police report in this case when he sought to examine prior written statements of the prosecution witnesses for purposes of cross-examination was an error under People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286). We find, however, that there is no reasonable possibility that this error might have contributed to the conviction and that it was, therefore, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman v California, 386 US 18; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court—burglary, third degree, etc.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Witmer and Moule, JJ.

People v. Confer, 73 A.D.2d 785, 423 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

73 A.D.2d 785 (People v. Confer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related