People v. Odom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Odom

124 A.D.2d 681, 508 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61984

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 681 (People v. Odom) 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. Odom, 124 A.D.2d 681, 508 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention, raised for the first time on the instant appeal, that he was denied the right to confront a witness against him. The record reveals that the prosecutor called Washington Cullum, one of the victims, to testify. However, after the feeble, elderly Cullum stated his name and informed the court that he was unable to speak in a loud voice, the court excused the witness with the consent of both the prosecutor and defense counsel. Under these circumstances, it is clear that no confrontation issue existed, for Cullum gave no testimony at the trial upon which he could have been cross-examined.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention, raised for the first time on the instant appeal, that he was denied the right to confront a witness against him. The record reveals that the prosecutor called Washington Cullum, one of the victims, to testify. However, after the feeble, elderly Cullum stated his name and informed the court that he was unable to speak in a loud voice, the court excused the witness with the consent of both the prosecutor and defense counsel. Under these circumstances, it is clear that no confrontation issue existed, for Cullum gave no testimony at the trial upon which he could have been cross-examined.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 681, 508 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-odom-nyappdiv-1986.