People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ray

191 A.D.2d 1010, 594 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3290

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was deprived of due process when, during a Huntley hearing, he was repeatedly asked on cross-examination whether he had made the inculpatory statement in question and whether the statement was true (see, People v Huntley, 46 Misc 2d 209, affd 27 AD2d 904, affd 21 NY2d 659, mot to amend remittitur granted 21 NY2d 829). The questions were permissible attempts to clarify defendant’s confusing direct testimony, which opened the door to the inquiries. In any event, all but one of defendant’s objections were sustained by the court. Further, defendant was not prejudiced by his answer to the sole question to which he unsuccessfully objected. There is no showing that the evidentiary error, if any, contributed to an erroneous determination of defendant’s motion to suppress. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Brandt, J.— Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was deprived of due process when, during a Huntley hearing, he was repeatedly asked on cross-examination whether he had made the inculpatory statement in question and whether the statement was true (see, People v Huntley, 46 Misc 2d 209, affd 27 AD2d 904, affd 21 NY2d 659, mot to amend remittitur granted 21 NY2d 829). The questions were permissible attempts to clarify defendant’s confusing direct testimony, which opened the door to the inquiries. In any event, all but one of defendant’s objections were sustained by the court. Further, defendant was not prejudiced by his answer to the sole question to which he unsuccessfully objected. There is no showing that the evidentiary error, if any, contributed to an erroneous determination of defendant’s motion to suppress. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Brandt, J.— Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

People v. Ray, 191 A.D.2d 1010, 594 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

191 A.D.2d 1010 (People v. Ray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related