People v. Lino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lino

65 A.D.3d 1263, 885 N.Y.S.2d 421

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1263 (People v. Lino) 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. Lino, 65 A.D.3d 1263, 885 N.Y.S.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 1, 2007, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the admission into evidence [1264]*1264of a certified copy of an order of protection violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the contention is without merit because the order of protection and the statements contained therein were not testimonial in nature (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 56 [2004]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008]; People v Maldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007]; People v Liner, 33 AD3d 479 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 856 [2007]; cf. People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006]). The order of protection, which indicated that the defendant was present in court when it was issued and that the defendant was advised of it, constituted a contemporaneous record of objective facts and was not directly accusatory (see People v Freycinet, 11 NY3d 38, 41 [2008]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d at 156; cf. People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006]).

The defendant’s challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant either raised no objection to the remarks or voiced only a general objection without specifying the ground therefor (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703 [2009]; People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703 [2009]; People v Delaney, 26 AD3d 189, 190 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Lott, 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 (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 1, 2007, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the admission into evidence [1264]*1264of a certified copy of an order of protection violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the contention is without merit because the order of protection and the statements contained therein were not testimonial in nature (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 56 [2004]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008]; People v Maldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007]; People v Liner, 33 AD3d 479 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 856 [2007]; cf. People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006]). The order of protection, which indicated that the defendant was present in court when it was issued and that the defendant was advised of it, constituted a contemporaneous record of objective facts and was not directly accusatory (see People v Freycinet, 11 NY3d 38, 41 [2008]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d at 156; cf. People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006]).

The defendant’s challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant either raised no objection to the remarks or voiced only a general objection without specifying the ground therefor (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703 [2009]; People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703 [2009]; People v Delaney, 26 AD3d 189, 190 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1263, 885 N.Y.S.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lino-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack