People v. Miranda

197 A.D.2d 407, 602 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9482
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Miranda. Read the opinion of the Court — 213 A.D.2d 560

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.), rendered March 25, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant sought to base a drug sweep defense on a portion of the arresting officer’s grand jury testimony. The court properly made an in camera inquiry of the chief reporter for the prosecutor’s office and, without the aid of cross-examination, determined that the transcript contained a key typographical error, and ruled that defendant could not use the uncorrected line of transcript without a presentation of a rebuttal witness for the People, whom defendant would have the opportunity to cross-examine. Defendant’s contention that his right to confront the chief reporter was violated is without merit. The right of confrontation does not impose an absolute right to cross-examine in camera where, as here, the witness would be available for cross-examination at trial (see, People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450, 454, citing Kentucky v Stincer, 482 US 730, 744).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining argument, and find it to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

People v. Miranda, 197 A.D.2d 407, 602 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

197 A.D.2d 407 (People v. Miranda) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kentucky v. Stincer
482 U.S. 730 (Supreme Court, 1987)
People v. Morales
606 N.E.2d 953 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)