People v. Favor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Favor

172 A.D.2d 1052, 571 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6322

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1052 (People v. Favor) 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. Favor, 172 A.D.2d 1052, 571 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to refer to unreliable chemical test results in his opening statement. We disagree. The court instructed the jury that the opening statements did not constitute evidence. The court also told the jury to disregard the chemist’s testimony about the testing procedures.

Defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that the court erred in conducting a Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) in his absence and, since defendant did not establish prejudice, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Dunbar, 172 AD2d 1006 [decided herewith]). Defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to refer to unreliable chemical test results in his opening statement. We disagree. The court instructed the jury that the opening statements did not constitute evidence. The court also told the jury to disregard the chemist’s testimony about the testing procedures.

Defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that the court erred in conducting a Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) in his absence and, since defendant did not establish prejudice, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Dunbar, 172 AD2d 1006 [decided herewith]). Defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1052, 571 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-favor-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack