People v. Jarvis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jarvis

111 A.D.2d 262, 489 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51384

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 13, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered February 23,1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Since defense counsel extensively cross-examined the sole eyewitness to the murder with respect to his lengthy criminal record and the testimony sought to be elicited bore only upon collateral matters of general credibility, any error which may have been committed by the trial court in refusing to allow further inquiry into the witness’ criminal background was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Allen, 67 AD2d 558, affd 50 NY2d 898 on opn of Presiding Justice Mollen at App Div).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered February 23,1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Since defense counsel extensively cross-examined the sole eyewitness to the murder with respect to his lengthy criminal record and the testimony sought to be elicited bore only upon collateral matters of general credibility, any error which may have been committed by the trial court in refusing to allow further inquiry into the witness’ criminal background was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Allen, 67 AD2d 558, affd 50 NY2d 898 on opn of Presiding Justice Mollen at App Div).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

People v. Jarvis, 111 A.D.2d 262, 489 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

111 A.D.2d 262 (People v. Jarvis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related