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

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 968, 610 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piper-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack