People v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perry

203 A.D.2d 131, 611 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4068

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

DecidedApril 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 131 (People v. Perry) 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. Perry, 203 A.D.2d 131, 611 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered June 11, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years on each of the grand larceny counts and criminal possession of stolen property counts and to a 6-month prison term on the criminal mischief count, unanimously affirmed.

The statement provided by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 was substantially the same as the statement testified to by the arresting police officer at trial, and any difference was not so significant as to cause defendant prejudice (see, People v Laporte, 184 AD2d 803, 805, lv denied 80 NY2d 905). To the degree that testimony by the other officer was not substantially the same, this testimony was elicited by defendant on cross-examination.

Although proof aimed at establishing a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, a trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, properly exclude such proof where it is too remote or speculative or where the cross-examination concerning such a motive is not proceeding upon some good-faith basis (People v Stewart [Vance], 188 AD2d 626, 627, lv denied 81 NY2d 977). Here, there was no abuse of discretion, the excluded questions being speculative and lacking any factual basis. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered June 11, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years on each of the grand larceny counts and criminal possession of stolen property counts and to a 6-month prison term on the criminal mischief count, unanimously affirmed.

The statement provided by the People pursuant to CPL 710.30 was substantially the same as the statement testified to by the arresting police officer at trial, and any difference was not so significant as to cause defendant prejudice (see, People v Laporte, 184 AD2d 803, 805, lv denied 80 NY2d 905). To the degree that testimony by the other officer was not substantially the same, this testimony was elicited by defendant on cross-examination.

Although proof aimed at establishing a motive to fabricate is never collateral and may not be excluded on that ground, a trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, properly exclude such proof where it is too remote or speculative or where the cross-examination concerning such a motive is not proceeding upon some good-faith basis (People v Stewart [Vance], 188 AD2d 626, 627, lv denied 81 NY2d 977). Here, there was no abuse of discretion, the excluded questions being speculative and lacking any factual basis. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 131, 611 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack