People v. Randolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Randolph

225 A.D.2d 502, 639 N.Y.2d 809, 639 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3269

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 502 (People v. Randolph) 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. Randolph, 225 A.D.2d 502, 639 N.Y.2d 809, 639 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s contention that the Sandoval proceedings were improperly conducted is unpreserved for review and, in any event, without merit. The court made it clear that any response to its inquiry to defense counsel for an indication of what defendant might testify about would be entirely voluntary. Moreover, the court noted that it was interested in "what the defendant is going to be saying, whether there is any other source for that kind of evidence”, an indication of the court’s intention to bear in mind what effect its ruling might have in inhibiting defendant from taking the stand (People v Clemente, 202 AD2d 302, lv denied 84 NY2d 906). Finally, defendant has shown no prejudice regarding the response defense counsel gave. We note that the Sandoval ruling itself was entirely proper. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Defendant’s contention that the Sandoval proceedings were improperly conducted is unpreserved for review and, in any event, without merit. The court made it clear that any response to its inquiry to defense counsel for an indication of what defendant might testify about would be entirely voluntary. Moreover, the court noted that it was interested in "what the defendant is going to be saying, whether there is any other source for that kind of evidence”, an indication of the court’s intention to bear in mind what effect its ruling might have in inhibiting defendant from taking the stand (People v Clemente, 202 AD2d 302, lv denied 84 NY2d 906). Finally, defendant has shown no prejudice regarding the response defense counsel gave. We note that the Sandoval ruling itself was entirely proper. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 502, 639 N.Y.2d 809, 639 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-randolph-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack