People v. Schaefer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schaefer

302 A.D.2d 333, 754 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1796

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 333 (People v. Schaefer) 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. Schaefer, 302 A.D.2d 333, 754 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered March 4, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 11 counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing her to consecutive terms of one year on each conviction, consolidated by law to two consecutive one-year terms, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in restricting both sides from questioning prospective jurors regarding the facts pertaining to defendant’s two prior convictions for crimes similar to those charged herein (People v Smith, 290 AD2d 367 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 762 [2002]). The trial court also properly precluded three of defendant’s witnesses from testify[334]*334ing since their proposed testimony was cumulative (People v Arroyo, 77 NY2d 947 [1991]; People v Figueroa, 258 AD2d 280 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 970 [1999]). Defendant’s claim that she was prejudiced by the failure to give a limiting instruction regarding her two prior convictions for aggravated harassment is unpreserved (People v Urbaez, 219 AD2d 568 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 908 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Jimenez, 246 AD2d 333, 334 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 942 [1998]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered March 4, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 11 counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing her to consecutive terms of one year on each conviction, consolidated by law to two consecutive one-year terms, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in restricting both sides from questioning prospective jurors regarding the facts pertaining to defendant’s two prior convictions for crimes similar to those charged herein (People v Smith, 290 AD2d 367 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 762 [2002]). The trial court also properly precluded three of defendant’s witnesses from testify[334]*334ing since their proposed testimony was cumulative (People v Arroyo, 77 NY2d 947 [1991]; People v Figueroa, 258 AD2d 280 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 970 [1999]). Defendant’s claim that she was prejudiced by the failure to give a limiting instruction regarding her two prior convictions for aggravated harassment is unpreserved (People v Urbaez, 219 AD2d 568 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 908 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Jimenez, 246 AD2d 333, 334 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 942 [1998]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 333, 754 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schaefer-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack