People v. Weatherspoon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weatherspoon

184 A.D.2d 1062, 586 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8318

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

DecidedJune 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 1062 (People v. Weatherspoon) 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. Weatherspoon, 184 A.D.2d 1062, 586 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously [1063]*1063affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not err in permitting the People to present rebuttal evidence concerning an uncharged crime. Defendant testified in detail concerning the uncharged matter in an attempt to establish the defenses of agency and entrapment. The rebuttal testimony controverted affirmative facts relating to the agency defense and thus was properly admitted (see, People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047). The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge because the proposed testimony of that witness would have been cumulative (see, People v Weatherspoon, 167 AD2d 865, 866). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously [1063]*1063affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not err in permitting the People to present rebuttal evidence concerning an uncharged crime. Defendant testified in detail concerning the uncharged matter in an attempt to establish the defenses of agency and entrapment. The rebuttal testimony controverted affirmative facts relating to the agency defense and thus was properly admitted (see, People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345, cert denied 460 US 1047). The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge because the proposed testimony of that witness would have been cumulative (see, People v Weatherspoon, 167 AD2d 865, 866). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 1062, 586 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weatherspoon-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack