People v. Roosevelt Council

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Roosevelt Council

343 N.E.2d 287, 37 N.Y.2d 937, 380 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2340

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 343 N.E.2d 287 (People v. Roosevelt Council) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Roosevelt Council, 343 N.E.2d 287, 37 N.Y.2d 937, 380 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2340 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Term is affirmed. The record is substantially error free despite the unfortunate questioning pursued by the trial prosecutor. The circumstances which led to the physical altercation between the complaining witness and defendant allowed of the inference that there was a close relationship between the woman, who was the casus belli, and defendant. In any event, the good faith of the trial prosecutor in pursuing his inquiry concerning that relationship or with respect to the witness Wright was never properly challenged by defense trial counsel (cf. [939]*939People v Kuss, 32 NY2d 436, 443-444; People v Alamo, 23 NY2d 630). The principal issue of guilt was a simple one, which the jury could not have failed to isolate or understand, and which defendant’s able appellate counsel recognizes was an issue beyond review in this court, limited, as it is, in a noncapital criminal action to questions of law.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed. -

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Term is affirmed. The record is substantially error free despite the unfortunate questioning pursued by the trial prosecutor. The circumstances which led to the physical altercation between the complaining witness and defendant allowed of the inference that there was a close relationship between the woman, who was the casus belli, and defendant. In any event, the good faith of the trial prosecutor in pursuing his inquiry concerning that relationship or with respect to the witness Wright was never properly challenged by defense trial counsel (cf. [939]*939People v Kuss, 32 NY2d 436, 443-444; People v Alamo, 23 NY2d 630). The principal issue of guilt was a simple one, which the jury could not have failed to isolate or understand, and which defendant’s able appellate counsel recognizes was an issue beyond review in this court, limited, as it is, in a noncapital criminal action to questions of law.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed. -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 N.E.2d 287, 37 N.Y.2d 937, 380 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roosevelt-council-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack