People v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muhammad

282 A.D.2d 761, 724 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4234

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 761 (People v. Muhammad) 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. Muhammad, 282 A.D.2d 761, 724 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered June 24, 1997, convicting him of [762]*762murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, a police officer testified about certain statements he had elicited from the defendant. The officer also testified that, prior to obtaining such statements, he had spoken to two other individuals concerning the facts of the case. The defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to confront the witnesses against him, since the two individuals with whom the officer had spoken were not present at trial. We agree with the People that the defendant has failed to preserve this argument for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Adams, 267 AD2d 140), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered June 24, 1997, convicting him of [762]*762murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, a police officer testified about certain statements he had elicited from the defendant. The officer also testified that, prior to obtaining such statements, he had spoken to two other individuals concerning the facts of the case. The defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to confront the witnesses against him, since the two individuals with whom the officer had spoken were not present at trial. We agree with the People that the defendant has failed to preserve this argument for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Adams, 267 AD2d 140), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 761, 724 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-muhammad-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack