People v. Roman
228 A.D.2d 392, 644 N.Y.2d 621, 644 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7478
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
A review of defendant’s testimony before the Grand Jury reveals that he was in no way prevented from fully presenting his narrative account, and thus there was compliance with CPL 190.50 (5) (b).
We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Roman, 228 A.D.2d 392, 644 N.Y.2d 621, 644 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 392 (People v. Roman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Dunn
248 A.D.2d 87 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)