People v. Morris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morris

103 A.D.3d 468, 962 N.Y.S.2d 26

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 468 (People v. Morris) 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. Morris, 103 A.D.3d 468, 962 N.Y.S.2d 26 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra Mullen, J.), rendered February 14, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to recall a police officer for the purpose of inquiring about an alleged inconsistency between a witness’s testimony and a written summary of the witness’s statement to the officer that was signed by the witness, but prepared by the officer. The purported inconsistency was not material to the case, it had little or no probative value, and defendant’s assertion that, if recalled, the officer would have given testimony beneficial to the defense is speculative. In any event, the defense was able to alert the jury to the alleged inconsistency (see generally People v Pryor, 5 AD3d 222 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 661 [2004]). Since defendant never claimed he was constitutionally entitled to recall the officer, his constitutional claim is unpreserved (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra Mullen, J.), rendered February 14, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request to recall a police officer for the purpose of inquiring about an alleged inconsistency between a witness’s testimony and a written summary of the witness’s statement to the officer that was signed by the witness, but prepared by the officer. The purported inconsistency was not material to the case, it had little or no probative value, and defendant’s assertion that, if recalled, the officer would have given testimony beneficial to the defense is speculative. In any event, the defense was able to alert the jury to the alleged inconsistency (see generally People v Pryor, 5 AD3d 222 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 661 [2004]). Since defendant never claimed he was constitutionally entitled to recall the officer, his constitutional claim is unpreserved (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 468, 962 N.Y.S.2d 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morris-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack