People v. Perno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perno

101 A.D.2d 1003, 476 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18725

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

DecidedMay 25, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.2d 1003 (People v. Perno) 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. Perno, 101 A.D.2d 1003, 476 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that it was improper to receive testimony concerning witness tampering by Martino was not preserved for review (GPL 470.05). There was no motion to strike the evidence, no motion for a mistrial, and almost all of the evidence pertaining to Martino came in without objection or as a result of questions asked by defense counsel on cross-examination. Were we to consider the point, we would find that the error, if any, in receipt of this evidence was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). From the evidence it clearly appeared that defendant was in no way involved with Martino’s efforts. In the prosecutor’s summation there was no suggestion that Martino was connected with defendant, and in the context of the entire record, the irrelevant references to Martino appear to have been of little moment. H We have examined the other points raised and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Sullivan, J. — tampering with witness.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that it was improper to receive testimony concerning witness tampering by Martino was not preserved for review (GPL 470.05). There was no motion to strike the evidence, no motion for a mistrial, and almost all of the evidence pertaining to Martino came in without objection or as a result of questions asked by defense counsel on cross-examination. Were we to consider the point, we would find that the error, if any, in receipt of this evidence was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). From the evidence it clearly appeared that defendant was in no way involved with Martino’s efforts. In the prosecutor’s summation there was no suggestion that Martino was connected with defendant, and in the context of the entire record, the irrelevant references to Martino appear to have been of little moment. H We have examined the other points raised and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Sullivan, J. — tampering with witness.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 1003, 476 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perno-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack