People v. Schultz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schultz

149 A.D.2d 919, 543 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5916

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 919 (People v. Schultz) 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. Schultz, 149 A.D.2d 919, 543 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the complainant to testify without inquiring into his capacity. No objection was raised by defendant with respect to capacity, and the issue is unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]). Were the issue properly before us, we would find no abuse of discretion (see, People v Rensing, 14 NY2d 210, 213). The Trial Judge inquired into the witness’s understanding of the proceedings, and she was satisfied that he had the capacity to testify. The record supports her conclusion. We have examined defendant’s other contention, and we find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J. — burglary, second degree; petit larceny.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine 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 the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the complainant to testify without inquiring into his capacity. No objection was raised by defendant with respect to capacity, and the issue is unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]). Were the issue properly before us, we would find no abuse of discretion (see, People v Rensing, 14 NY2d 210, 213). The Trial Judge inquired into the witness’s understanding of the proceedings, and she was satisfied that he had the capacity to testify. The record supports her conclusion. We have examined defendant’s other contention, and we find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J. — burglary, second degree; petit larceny.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 919, 543 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schultz-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack