People v. Confer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Confer

152 A.D.2d 932, 543 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9788

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 932 (People v. Confer) 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. Confer, 152 A.D.2d 932, 543 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The testimony of the police investigator concerning the complainant’s identification of defendant was improper bolstering. However, no objection having been made, the issue is not preserved for appeal. In view of strong testimony linking defendant to the crime, the error was harmless in any event.

Defendant’s argument that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Counsel made pretrial motions and presented a forceful defense, including effective cross-examination of the People’s witnesses. In our view, the defense presented was meaningful and met the constitutional standard (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal mischief, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The testimony of the police investigator concerning the complainant’s identification of defendant was improper bolstering. However, no objection having been made, the issue is not preserved for appeal. In view of strong testimony linking defendant to the crime, the error was harmless in any event.

Defendant’s argument that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Counsel made pretrial motions and presented a forceful defense, including effective cross-examination of the People’s witnesses. In our view, the defense presented was meaningful and met the constitutional standard (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — criminal mischief, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 932, 543 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-confer-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack