People v. Hunter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hunter

127 A.D.2d 696, 512 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43185

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 696 (People v. Hunter) 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. Hunter, 127 A.D.2d 696, 512 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered November 3, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At bar, the defendant testified that he had never seen the gun before the day in question. Therefore, he opened the door to the prosecutor’s question concerning his alleged prior possession of the weapon. Moreover, given the limited scope of the question, the defendant’s response in the negative and the trial court’s instruction to the jury not to consider questions as evidence, it was not error to allow it on rebuttal.

By failing to object or except to the court’s charge on temporary possession of the weapon, the defendant failed to preserve any issue of law with respect thereto for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cobos, 57 NY2d 798). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, 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 (Ramirez, J.), rendered November 3, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At bar, the defendant testified that he had never seen the gun before the day in question. Therefore, he opened the door to the prosecutor’s question concerning his alleged prior possession of the weapon. Moreover, given the limited scope of the question, the defendant’s response in the negative and the trial court’s instruction to the jury not to consider questions as evidence, it was not error to allow it on rebuttal.

By failing to object or except to the court’s charge on temporary possession of the weapon, the defendant failed to preserve any issue of law with respect thereto for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cobos, 57 NY2d 798). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 696, 512 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hunter-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack