People v. Maniram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maniram

242 A.D.2d 472, 662 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9032

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 472 (People v. Maniram) 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. Maniram, 242 A.D.2d 472, 662 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered August 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted testimony concerning a prior altercation between the complainant and defendant. The prior incident was not unduly remote and was highly relevant to motive (see, People v Angel, 238 AD2d 210). Further, the court gave adequate limiting instructions at the time the testimony was introduced.

The court’s ruling concerning impeachment of a witness by an alleged prior inconsistent statement was a proper exercise [473]*473of discretion (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80, cert denied 442 US 910).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered August 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted testimony concerning a prior altercation between the complainant and defendant. The prior incident was not unduly remote and was highly relevant to motive (see, People v Angel, 238 AD2d 210). Further, the court gave adequate limiting instructions at the time the testimony was introduced.

The court’s ruling concerning impeachment of a witness by an alleged prior inconsistent statement was a proper exercise [473]*473of discretion (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80, cert denied 442 US 910).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 472, 662 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maniram-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack