People v. Shorts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shorts

27 A.D.2d 660, 277 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5059

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 660 (People v. Shorts) 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. Shorts, 27 A.D.2d 660, 277 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 28, 1966, affirmed. Assuming, without deciding, that upon reasonable notice to the District Attorney an indigent defendant would be entitled to a transcript of the testimony of a witness on a prior trial which otherwise would not have been transcribed by the People (cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N Y 2d 162), we are of the opinion that the failure here to furnish defendant with the former testimony of a named police officer did not constitute reversible error. The request was not made until the officer was being cross-examined; the prior testimony apparently had not been transcribed and was not in the possession of the District Attorney, who had made his entire file available to defendant; and, in any event, there was no substantial inconsistency between the prior testimony and the testimony at the trial (cf. People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286, 291). Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and we find no merit therein. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 28, 1966, affirmed. Assuming, without deciding, that upon reasonable notice to the District Attorney an indigent defendant would be entitled to a transcript of the testimony of a witness on a prior trial which otherwise would not have been transcribed by the People (cf. People v. Jaglom, 17 N Y 2d 162), we are of the opinion that the failure here to furnish defendant with the former testimony of a named police officer did not constitute reversible error. The request was not made until the officer was being cross-examined; the prior testimony apparently had not been transcribed and was not in the possession of the District Attorney, who had made his entire file available to defendant; and, in any event, there was no substantial inconsistency between the prior testimony and the testimony at the trial (cf. People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286, 291). Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and we find no merit therein. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 660, 277 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shorts-nyappdiv-1967.