People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. King

214 A.D.2d 307, 624 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620

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

DecidedApril 4, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 307 (People v. King) 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. King, 214 A.D.2d 307, 624 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered January 26, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of from IV2 to 15 years imprisonment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the conviction vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial.

While a trial court’s refusal of a defendant’s request for a jury instruction that a prior inconsistent statement may be used for impeachment purposes only and is not evidence of the truth of the prior statement is generally inconsequential, where, as here, the People’s case rested on the credibility of a single, significantly impeached witness, such refusal constitutes reversible error.

We have considered the defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered January 26, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of from IV2 to 15 years imprisonment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the conviction vacated and the matter remanded for a new trial.

While a trial court’s refusal of a defendant’s request for a jury instruction that a prior inconsistent statement may be used for impeachment purposes only and is not evidence of the truth of the prior statement is generally inconsequential, where, as here, the People’s case rested on the credibility of a single, significantly impeached witness, such refusal constitutes reversible error.

We have considered the defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 307, 624 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-king-nyappdiv-1995.