People v. McDowell

New York Court of Appeals

People v. McDowell

392 N.E.2d 1245, 47 N.Y.2d 858, 419 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2137

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 392 N.E.2d 1245 (People v. McDowell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. McDowell, 392 N.E.2d 1245, 47 N.Y.2d 858, 419 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2137 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

While defendants did object at trial as to certain questions posed by the prosecutor to defendant McDowell on cross-examination, the objections taken were clearly predicated on the ground that the prosecutor was making improper factual assumptions in the questions, and not that, as now argued, the nature of the questions themselves unduly prejudiced defendants. As the record reveals, on numerous occasions the prosecutor inquired of McDowell whether he had heard prosecution witnesses make certain statements at trial, yet no objection was taken. Defendants having failed to properly state to the trial court the grounds for their objections or object to this line of questioning, this issue is not preserved for our review.

*860 We have considered such of defendants’ remaining contentions as were preserved for appellate review and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

While defendants did object at trial as to certain questions posed by the prosecutor to defendant McDowell on cross-examination, the objections taken were clearly predicated on the ground that the prosecutor was making improper factual assumptions in the questions, and not that, as now argued, the nature of the questions themselves unduly prejudiced defendants. As the record reveals, on numerous occasions the prosecutor inquired of McDowell whether he had heard prosecution witnesses make certain statements at trial, yet no objection was taken. Defendants having failed to properly state to the trial court the grounds for their objections or object to this line of questioning, this issue is not preserved for our review.

*860 We have considered such of defendants’ remaining contentions as were preserved for appellate review and have found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 N.E.2d 1245, 47 N.Y.2d 858, 419 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcdowell-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack