People v. Fleming

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Fleming

519 N.E.2d 616, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 17

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 19, 1988·Published·Cited by 84 cases

Opinion

*948 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s sole claim of error — that the trial court violated his right of confrontation by permitting the arresting officer to testify that he arrested defendant after a conversation with an individual who did not testify — has not been preserved for our review. Although defense counsel sought a prospective ruling on this point, the court declined to make an anticipatory ruling. When the arresting officer later testified at trial, counsel entered objections as "objection” or "leading”, but failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for any of his objections. The word "objection” alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025; People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*948 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s sole claim of error — that the trial court violated his right of confrontation by permitting the arresting officer to testify that he arrested defendant after a conversation with an individual who did not testify — has not been preserved for our review. Although defense counsel sought a prospective ruling on this point, the court declined to make an anticipatory ruling. When the arresting officer later testified at trial, counsel entered objections as "objection” or "leading”, but failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for any of his objections. The word "objection” alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025; People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Fleming, 519 N.E.2d 616, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 17 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

519 N.E.2d 616 (People v. Fleming) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related