People v. Kellams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kellams

161 A.D.2d 1181, 555 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9196

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1181 (People v. Kellams) 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. Kellams, 161 A.D.2d 1181, 555 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: The court erred in admitting, without proper foundation, defendant’s bloodstained underwear and scientific testimony relating to the underwear (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 342; People v Brown, 115 AD2d 610, lv denied 67 NY2d 940; People v Capella, 111 AD2d 179). Proof that defendant committed rape in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, however, was overwhelming. Because there is no significant probability that, absent the error, the jury [1182]*1182would have acquitted defendant, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242; People v Brown, supra).

All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial in the following memorandum.

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

Judgment affirmed. Memorandum: The court erred in admitting, without proper foundation, defendant’s bloodstained underwear and scientific testimony relating to the underwear (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 342; People v Brown, 115 AD2d 610, lv denied 67 NY2d 940; People v Capella, 111 AD2d 179). Proof that defendant committed rape in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, however, was overwhelming. Because there is no significant probability that, absent the error, the jury [1182]*1182would have acquitted defendant, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242; People v Brown, supra).

All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial in the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1181, 555 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kellams-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack