People v. Shelton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shelton

151 A.D.2d 975, 542 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8284

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Shelton) 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. Shelton, 151 A.D.2d 975, 542 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Neither of the issues raised by defendant on appeal warrants reversal. Any error in the introduction of extrinsic evidence by the People to refute defendant’s answers on collateral matters was harmless. The evidence supporting defendant’s conviction was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that, absent the use of the extrinsic evidence, the result would have been different (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). We have reviewed the court’s instruction on identification testimony, including the court’s summary of the testimony given by one of the eyewitnesses, and we conclude that, viewed in its entirety, it fairly informed the jury of the matters to be considered in determining the reliability of the identification testimony and did not improperly indicate to the jury that the court believed the prosecution’s witness. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — assault, first degree; criminal use of firearm, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Neither of the issues raised by defendant on appeal warrants reversal. Any error in the introduction of extrinsic evidence by the People to refute defendant’s answers on collateral matters was harmless. The evidence supporting defendant’s conviction was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that, absent the use of the extrinsic evidence, the result would have been different (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). We have reviewed the court’s instruction on identification testimony, including the court’s summary of the testimony given by one of the eyewitnesses, and we conclude that, viewed in its entirety, it fairly informed the jury of the matters to be considered in determining the reliability of the identification testimony and did not improperly indicate to the jury that the court believed the prosecution’s witness. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — assault, first degree; criminal use of firearm, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 975, 542 N.Y.S.2d 422, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shelton-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack