People v. Hale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hale

122 A.D.2d 162, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59494

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 14, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 162 (People v. Hale) 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. Hale, 122 A.D.2d 162, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered March 20, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought the suppression of identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

On cross-examination the prosecutor improperly attempted to invade the attorney-client relationship by asking the defen[163]*163dant whether he had discussed with his attorney the idea of wearing sneakers into court. Whatever minimal prejudice might have arisen was alleviated by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection before the defendant could answer, and by its prompt curative instructions. Moreover, if the defendant believed that the curative instructions which were given were inadequate, he should have immediately made an application seeking further or more complete instructions (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865).

The remainder of the defendant’s contentions, including his pro se claims, have been examined and found to be without merit or unpreserved. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered March 20, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought the suppression of identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

On cross-examination the prosecutor improperly attempted to invade the attorney-client relationship by asking the defen[163]*163dant whether he had discussed with his attorney the idea of wearing sneakers into court. Whatever minimal prejudice might have arisen was alleviated by the court’s sustaining of defense counsel’s objection before the defendant could answer, and by its prompt curative instructions. Moreover, if the defendant believed that the curative instructions which were given were inadequate, he should have immediately made an application seeking further or more complete instructions (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865).

The remainder of the defendant’s contentions, including his pro se claims, have been examined and found to be without merit or unpreserved. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 162, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hale-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack