People v. Fearon

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Fearon

192 N.E.2d 8, 13 N.Y.2d 59, 242 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1021

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 192 N.E.2d 8 (People v. Fearon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Fearon, 192 N.E.2d 8, 13 N.Y.2d 59, 242 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1021 (N.Y. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Judge Desmond.

Defendant argues that his conviction should have been reversed in the Appellate Division because the record on appeal in that court did not contain the summations of counsel. Apparently the summations were not taken down by the stenographer except as to one part of the prosecutor’s speech to which defendant objected and a similar incident during the summation by defense counsel. Neither of these excerpts shows any erroneous ruling or any serious misconduct. As to the argument that in every criminal cause the closing speeches of counsel must be recorded in full, the Judges of this court know from experience as well as from records filed with us that in many parts of the State (as in other States — see, for instance, Magoohan v. Curran, 71 Conn. 551) such has not been the practice. However, various statutes (see Code Crim. Pro., §§ 388, 456, 458, 485; Judiciary Law, § 295) if read literally require that “ the entire proceedings” of the trial be taken down stenographically.

While the present record shows an absence of prejudice to defendant from a failure to record the summations as well as an implied waiver of such recording, it would seem to be better practice in criminal causes for the Judge to order the summations to be taken down by the stenographer unless both counsel stipulate to the contrary.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vooehis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Chief Judge Desmond.

Defendant argues that his conviction should have been reversed in the Appellate Division because the record on appeal in that court did not contain the summations of counsel. Apparently the summations were not taken down by the stenographer except as to one part of the prosecutor’s speech to which defendant objected and a similar incident during the summation by defense counsel. Neither of these excerpts shows any erroneous ruling or any serious misconduct. As to the argument that in every criminal cause the closing speeches of counsel must be recorded in full, the Judges of this court know from experience as well as from records filed with us that in many parts of the State (as in other States — see, for instance, Magoohan v. Curran, 71 Conn. 551) such has not been the practice. However, various statutes (see Code Crim. Pro., §§ 388, 456, 458, 485; Judiciary Law, § 295) if read literally require that “ the entire proceedings” of the trial be taken down stenographically.

While the present record shows an absence of prejudice to defendant from a failure to record the summations as well as an implied waiver of such recording, it would seem to be better practice in criminal causes for the Judge to order the summations to be taken down by the stenographer unless both counsel stipulate to the contrary.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vooehis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.E.2d 8, 13 N.Y.2d 59, 242 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fearon-ny-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack