People v. Hassell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hassell

61 A.D.3d 484, 878 N.Y.S.2d 670

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

DecidedApril 14, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 484 (People v. Hassell) 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. Hassell, 61 A.D.3d 484, 878 N.Y.S.2d 670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered December 21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was not prejudiced when the Arresting officer, in testifying about a statement made by defendant, mistakenly used wording that made reference to a possible uncharged crime, since the officer immediately corrected his mistake and made it clear to the jury that the offending reference was never made. On cross-examination, defense counsel repeated this clarification of the officer’s testimony, and did not request any remedy. The statement, as corrected, was clearly admissible in the context of the case. In any event, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Defendant’s pro se claims are without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered December 21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was not prejudiced when the Arresting officer, in testifying about a statement made by defendant, mistakenly used wording that made reference to a possible uncharged crime, since the officer immediately corrected his mistake and made it clear to the jury that the offending reference was never made. On cross-examination, defense counsel repeated this clarification of the officer’s testimony, and did not request any remedy. The statement, as corrected, was clearly admissible in the context of the case. In any event, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Defendant’s pro se claims are without merit. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 484, 878 N.Y.S.2d 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hassell-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack