People v. Piper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piper

201 A.D.2d 968, 610 N.Y.S.2d 912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 4, 1994·Published

Opinion

Judgments unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in permitting a prosecution witness to read defendant’s written statement to the jury before it had been offered into evidence. Defendant’s general objection failed to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641; People v Tarbell, 167 AD2d 902, lv denied 77 NY2d 883). Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that defendant was not prejudiced thereby because the statement was later received in evidence and read to the jury. Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to redact defendant’s written statement to delete reference to á prior bad act, and we decline to reach that issue in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). We find the sentence neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgments of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgments unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in permitting a prosecution witness to read defendant’s written statement to the jury before it had been offered into evidence. Defendant’s general objection failed to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641; People v Tarbell, 167 AD2d 902, lv denied 77 NY2d 883). Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that defendant was not prejudiced thereby because the statement was later received in evidence and read to the jury. Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to redact defendant’s written statement to delete reference to á prior bad act, and we decline to reach that issue in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). We find the sentence neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgments of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

People v. Piper, 201 A.D.2d 968, 610 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 968 (People v. Piper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related