People v. Murray

147 A.D.2d 925, 537 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1152
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 925 (People v. Murray) 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. Murray, 147 A.D.2d 925, 537 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of defendant’s contentions has merit. The photographs of the body of the victim were properly admitted because they tended to prove a material issue and to illustrate or elucidate other evidence (see, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370, rearg denied 33 NY2d 657, cert denied 416 US 905). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the prosecutor did not impeach his own witness, but did properly use the witness’s statement to refresh his memory, without disclosing the contents of the statement to the jury (see, CPL 60.35 [3]). The testimony of the prosecutor’s expert witness concerning blood splatter was properly admitted even though defense counsel was not furnished with a written report of that testimony. The witness did not prepare a written report embodying his opinion concerning the blood splatter patterns found on defendant’s clothing and, hence, there was no such report to furnish (see, CPL 240.20 [1] [c]). Moreover, defendant was not prejudiced by lack of advance notice of the opinion testimony because his counsel and his expert witness conferred with the prosecution’s expert during the trial and defendant’s expert witness agreed with the blood splatter opinion of the prosecution witness. As indicated by the sentencing minutes and certificate of conviction, defendant was properly sentenced on all counts of which he was convicted. Finally, we find no merit to the points raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — murder, second degree, and another charge.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Hanes
194 N.Y.S.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
People v. Thompson
25 Misc. 3d 1065 (New York County Courts, 2009)
People v. Barnes
267 A.D.2d 1020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Maloney
233 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Montelbano
232 A.D.2d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Robinson v. State
574 So. 2d 910 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 A.D.2d 925, 537 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-nyappdiv-1989.