People v. Stanley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stanley

201 A.D.2d 943, 610 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2129

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 943 (People v. Stanley) 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. Stanley, 201 A.D.2d 943, 610 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the failure of the People to include one of its witnesses on the list of witnesses provided to defense counsel prior to jury selection (see, People v Miller, 106 AD2d 787, 788). We reject defendant’s contention that the photo array shown to the police witness was impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Burns, 186 AD2d 1015, lv denied 81 NY2d 837; People v Hall, 177 AD2d 951, lv denied 79 NY2d 948). Defendant’s remaining arguments have not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to address them in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd [944]*944Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial based upon the failure of the People to include one of its witnesses on the list of witnesses provided to defense counsel prior to jury selection (see, People v Miller, 106 AD2d 787, 788). We reject defendant’s contention that the photo array shown to the police witness was impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Burns, 186 AD2d 1015, lv denied 81 NY2d 837; People v Hall, 177 AD2d 951, lv denied 79 NY2d 948). Defendant’s remaining arguments have not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to address them in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd [944]*944Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 943, 610 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stanley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack