People v. Melendez

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Melendez

865 N.E.2d 1, 8 N.Y.3d 886, 832 N.Y.S.2d 893

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 865 N.E.2d 1 (People v. Melendez) 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. Melendez, 865 N.E.2d 1, 8 N.Y.3d 886, 832 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

During the testimony of a non-English-speaking witness, the trial court required defendant’s court-appointed interpreter to stand at the back of the courtroom and interpret for the entire court, rather than solely for defendant. The constitutional issues defendant raises — including the violation of his right to counsel, his right to be present and his right to participate in his own defense — were not presented to the trial court and are thus not preserved for our review. Defendant’s remaining contentions regarding alleged inaccurate translation of complainant’s testimony and faulty instructions to the grand jury are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur; Judge Pigott 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.

During the testimony of a non-English-speaking witness, the trial court required defendant’s court-appointed interpreter to stand at the back of the courtroom and interpret for the entire court, rather than solely for defendant. The constitutional issues defendant raises — including the violation of his right to counsel, his right to be present and his right to participate in his own defense — were not presented to the trial court and are thus not preserved for our review. Defendant’s remaining contentions regarding alleged inaccurate translation of complainant’s testimony and faulty instructions to the grand jury are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Jones concur; Judge Pigott taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 N.E.2d 1, 8 N.Y.3d 886, 832 N.Y.S.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melendez-ny-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack