People v. Dowdy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dowdy

154 A.D.2d 613

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 613 (People v. Dowdy) 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. Dowdy, 154 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), entered June 26, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record clearly reflects that the volume of noise coming into the courtroom from the street rendered parts of the testimony presented by both sides inaudible. Thus, in permitting a read-back of the testimony during the trial, the trial [614]*614court fulfilled its role of encouraging clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof, of facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, and ensuring that the evidence was presented intelligibly to the jury (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 57; People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945). In any event, there is no evidence of prejudice to the defendant.

Any issue with respect to the conduct of the court in instructing the witnesses to raise their voices when answering questions, or in delaying questions and answers until the outside noise subsided, is not preserved for appellate review, since the defendant’s trial counsel made no objection to the conduct now challenged. In any event, we find that the court’s remarks did not prejudice the defendant (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, supra, at 54-55; People v Morton, 117 AD2d 631). We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Spatt, 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, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), entered June 26, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record clearly reflects that the volume of noise coming into the courtroom from the street rendered parts of the testimony presented by both sides inaudible. Thus, in permitting a read-back of the testimony during the trial, the trial [614]*614court fulfilled its role of encouraging clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof, of facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, and ensuring that the evidence was presented intelligibly to the jury (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 57; People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 945). In any event, there is no evidence of prejudice to the defendant.

Any issue with respect to the conduct of the court in instructing the witnesses to raise their voices when answering questions, or in delaying questions and answers until the outside noise subsided, is not preserved for appellate review, since the defendant’s trial counsel made no objection to the conduct now challenged. In any event, we find that the court’s remarks did not prejudice the defendant (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, supra, at 54-55; People v Morton, 117 AD2d 631). We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dowdy-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack