People v. Flournoy

303 A.D.2d 762, 757 N.Y.S.2d 454
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 762 (People v. Flournoy) 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. Flournoy, 303 A.D.2d 762, 757 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered July 3, 1997, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

An alleged deprivation of the constitutional right to counsel may be raised on appeal, irrespective of whether such claim has been preserved for appellate review (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]; People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218, 221 [1980]). However, since the factual record of the pretrial suppression hearing is insufficient, we are unable to review the defendant’s right to counsel claim (see People v Kinchen, supra at 773-774).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony of a detective recounting part of her interview with an eyewitness to the crime, who, inter alia, described the defendant, was properly admitted as background information to explain the events that led to the defendant’s arrest (see People v Stephens, 274 AD2d 487, 488 [2000]). Moreover, the trial court instructed the jury that the testimony of such interview was not admitted for its truth, but rather to provide background information, which effectively eliminated any risk of prejudice to the defendant (see People v Burrus, 182 AD2d 634 [1992]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Bethea
2018 NY Slip Op 1474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Mateo
2017 NY Slip Op 1569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Jaen
116 A.D.3d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Brody
82 A.D.3d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Elliott
39 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Goodson
35 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 A.D.2d 762, 757 N.Y.S.2d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flournoy-nyappdiv-2003.