People v. James

228 A.D.2d 697, 644 N.Y.2d 973, 644 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7393
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[698]*698The contentions raised by the defendant are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the prosecutor properly utilized certain statements given to the police by eyewitnesses in order to impeach the credibility of the defendant’s psychiatric expert, who had testified that the defendant was under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the shooting (see, People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638; People v Rijos, 213 AD2d 431). Moreover, the trial court properly instructed the jurors on how they could utilize these statements (see, People v Fardan, supra, at 646-647).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

People v. James, 228 A.D.2d 697, 644 N.Y.2d 973, 644 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 697 (People v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. James
255 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)