People v. Manning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manning

121 A.D.2d 745, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58728

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 30, 1986·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), rendered May 1, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The record discloses that the testimony concerning certain witnesses’ fear of the defendant prior to his arrest, now urged as prejudicial, was either elicited primarily by defense counsel himself, or elicited by the prosecutor after defense counsel had opened the door to further inquiry with respect thereto.

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was no probability that the jury could have construed the court’s missing witness charge to authorize the drawing of an adverse inference against the defense instead of the People.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, 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, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), rendered May 1, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The record discloses that the testimony concerning certain witnesses’ fear of the defendant prior to his arrest, now urged as prejudicial, was either elicited primarily by defense counsel himself, or elicited by the prosecutor after defense counsel had opened the door to further inquiry with respect thereto.

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was no probability that the jury could have construed the court’s missing witness charge to authorize the drawing of an adverse inference against the defense instead of the People.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

People v. Manning, 121 A.D.2d 745, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

121 A.D.2d 745 (People v. Manning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related