People v. McPherson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. McPherson

436 N.E.2d 1323, 56 N.Y.2d 696, 451 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3360

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 436 N.E.2d 1323 (People v. McPherson) 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. McPherson, 436 N.E.2d 1323, 56 N.Y.2d 696, 451 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3360 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

An examination of the Wade ruling in this case reveals that the-court found that the challenged station house identification of defendant was not the product of a suggestive identification procedure. Inasmuch as a proper basis appears in the record for this finding, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Moreover, we cannot say that the trial court’s brief concern with possibly changing this ruling, after defense counsel opened to the jury, prejudiced defendant in terms of the presentation of his defense or his choice of his undisclosed trial strategy, as the court, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original ruling.

[698]*698Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

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.

An examination of the Wade ruling in this case reveals that the-court found that the challenged station house identification of defendant was not the product of a suggestive identification procedure. Inasmuch as a proper basis appears in the record for this finding, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Moreover, we cannot say that the trial court’s brief concern with possibly changing this ruling, after defense counsel opened to the jury, prejudiced defendant in terms of the presentation of his defense or his choice of his undisclosed trial strategy, as the court, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original ruling.

[698]*698Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 N.E.2d 1323, 56 N.Y.2d 696, 451 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcpherson-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack