People v. Herrall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herrall

259 A.D.2d 347, 689 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2748

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 347 (People v. Herrall) 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. Herrall, 259 A.D.2d 347, 689 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered April 25, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of SVa to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s cross-examination of the officer opened the door to the challenged redirect examination and a prior statement was properly admitted to rebut defendant’s suggestion of a specific recent fabrication occurring during the trial. In any event, were we to find any error in the receipt of this testimony, we would find such error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Johnson, 213 AD2d 241, lv denied 86 NY2d 782). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered April 25, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of SVa to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s cross-examination of the officer opened the door to the challenged redirect examination and a prior statement was properly admitted to rebut defendant’s suggestion of a specific recent fabrication occurring during the trial. In any event, were we to find any error in the receipt of this testimony, we would find such error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Johnson, 213 AD2d 241, lv denied 86 NY2d 782). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 347, 689 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-herrall-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack