People v. Givens

132 A.D.2d 567, 517 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49096
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 6, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Givens) 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. Givens, 132 A.D.2d 567, 517 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered February 2, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cross-examination of a witness with exculpatory information as to his or her prior silence is generally permissible when done in good faith because of the "natural impulse of a person possessing exculpatory information * * * to come forward at the earliest possible moment in order to forestall the mistaken prosecution of a friend or loved one” (People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 318; People v Cook, 117 AD2d 675, 676, lv denied 67 NY2d 941). We find no error regarding the cross-examination because a proper foundation was laid. A Bench conference took place at the start of the cross-examination, and the defense counsel did not request an additional curative instruction (People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, supra; People v Cook, 117 AD2d 675, supra; People v Washington, 131 AD2d 795). In any event, the prosecutrix was warranted, on cross-examination, in exploring the subject of the witness’ prior silence, since the defense counsel examined the witness on this subject during direct examination (People v Cook, supra).

The defendant’s assertions of impropriety in the prosecutrix’ summation were not preserved for appellate review, as no objections were taken (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the comments were a fair response to remarks made by defense counsel on summation and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912; People v Blackman, 88 AD2d 620). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Joseph
97 A.D.3d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.2d 567, 517 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-givens-nyappdiv-1987.