People v. Orr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Orr

190 A.D.2d 760

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 760 (People v. Orr) 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. Orr, 190 A.D.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuifner, J.), rendered March 12, 1991, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant correctly points out that the People have an obligation to disclose the existence of any agreement between the prosecution and a witness to induce the witness to testify (People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490; People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434; see generally, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83), in this case, there was no agreement in existence which might have induced the subject witness to testify against the defendant. Thus, there was no Brady violation (see, People v Miller, 174 AD2d 989, 990).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosario, 142 AD2d 743), or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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, Richmond County (Kuifner, J.), rendered March 12, 1991, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defendant correctly points out that the People have an obligation to disclose the existence of any agreement between the prosecution and a witness to induce the witness to testify (People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490; People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434; see generally, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83), in this case, there was no agreement in existence which might have induced the subject witness to testify against the defendant. Thus, there was no Brady violation (see, People v Miller, 174 AD2d 989, 990).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosario, 142 AD2d 743), or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-orr-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack