People v. Meade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meade

58 A.D.2d 662, 395 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12760

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

DecidedJune 2, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 662 (People v. Meade) 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. Meade, 58 A.D.2d 662, 395 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County, rendered September 13, 1976, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief, fourth degree. Following his indictment for criminal mischief in the second degree, the defendant moved for a Huntley hearing regarding his signed statement. On cross-examination, over objection, the District Attorney was permitted to ask the defendant if his statement was truthful. The defendant was then questioned by the trial court concerning his activities earlier that evening. We find no reversible error in the procedure followed in view of the trial court’s statement that the testimony elicited from the defendant would not be admissible against him at the trial, but was received for the limited purpose of establishing that the confession was freely given. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County, rendered September 13, 1976, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief, fourth degree. Following his indictment for criminal mischief in the second degree, the defendant moved for a Huntley hearing regarding his signed statement. On cross-examination, over objection, the District Attorney was permitted to ask the defendant if his statement was truthful. The defendant was then questioned by the trial court concerning his activities earlier that evening. We find no reversible error in the procedure followed in view of the trial court’s statement that the testimony elicited from the defendant would not be admissible against him at the trial, but was received for the limited purpose of establishing that the confession was freely given. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 662, 395 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meade-nyappdiv-1977.