Home/New York Court of Appeals/People v. Walstatter

People v. Walstatter

423 N.E.2d 38, 53 N.Y.2d 871, 440 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2453
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 7, 1981·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Although the testimony of the complainant and defendant was in sharp conflict on the issue of forcible compulsion, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the evidence, [873]*873viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was legally insufficient. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to use live models for an in-court demonstration. Those of defendant’s remaining contentions that are preserved for review have been considered and do not warrant reversal.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

People v. Walstatter, 423 N.E.2d 38, 53 N.Y.2d 871, 440 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2453 (N.Y. 1981).

423 N.E.2d 38 (People v. Walstatter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Rosemond
270 A.D.2d 293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Bowen
172 A.D.2d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Dunn
124 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Gleixner
124 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Lourido
124 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Porrata
119 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Stancu
106 A.D.2d 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
People v. Gonzales
86 A.D.2d 634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)