People v. Fross

115 A.D.2d 247, 496 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54496

This text of 115 A.D.2d 247 (People v. Fross) 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. Fross, 115 A.D.2d 247, 496 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court properly refused to permit defense counsel to use a police report to refresh the eyewitness’s recollection since the witness exhibited no lack of memory (see, People v Boice, 89 AD2d 33). Because the evidence could not have been admitted under any circumstances, its exclusion was not error, even though the objection may have been made on an untenable ground (see, Fisch, New York Evidence § 20 [2d ed]).

[248]*248We find defendant’s other contentions to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.— burglary, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Boice
89 A.D.2d 33 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 A.D.2d 247, 496 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fross-nyappdiv-1985.