People v. Leon-Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leon-Ramos

28 A.D.3d 679, 816 N.Y.S.2d 100

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

DecidedApril 18, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 679 (People v. Leon-Ramos) 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. Leon-Ramos, 28 A.D.3d 679, 816 N.Y.S.2d 100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered March 12, 2004, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to inquire, outside the jury’s presence, about a conversation between two of the prosecution’s witnesses, which occurred during a brief recess immediately after the first witness’s testimony and just prior to the second witness’s testimony. This argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685 [1986], cert denied 482 US 914 [1987]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 473 [1980]; People v Jones, 284 AD2d 411 [2001]). Moreover, the defendant abandoned that argument by cross-examining the second witness without inquiring about the [680]*680subject conversation (see People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]; cf. People v Perdomo, 280 AD2d 617 [2001]). In any event, the court’s ruling was a provident exercise of its discretion. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Lifson, 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, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered March 12, 2004, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to inquire, outside the jury’s presence, about a conversation between two of the prosecution’s witnesses, which occurred during a brief recess immediately after the first witness’s testimony and just prior to the second witness’s testimony. This argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Iannelli, 69 NY2d 684, 685 [1986], cert denied 482 US 914 [1987]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 473 [1980]; People v Jones, 284 AD2d 411 [2001]). Moreover, the defendant abandoned that argument by cross-examining the second witness without inquiring about the [680]*680subject conversation (see People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]; cf. People v Perdomo, 280 AD2d 617 [2001]). In any event, the court’s ruling was a provident exercise of its discretion. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 679, 816 N.Y.S.2d 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leon-ramos-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack