People v. Zachary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zachary

23 A.D.3d 506, 808 N.Y.S.2d 99

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 506 (People v. Zachary) 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. Zachary, 23 A.D.3d 506, 808 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 11, 2001, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony of a detective that the defendant’s name came up in the course of investigating the criminal occurrence was not improper (see People v Brown, 262 AD2d 570 [1999], affd 95 NY2d 776 [2000]; People v Williams, 193 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1993]; People v Armstead, 134 AD2d 601 [1987]). Also, the trial court promptly cured any prejudice resulting from the detective’s testimony about a reference to the defendant made by a nontestifying witness when it instructed the jury to consider this evidence only for the purpose of understanding the detective’s conduct in response thereto (see People v Elliott, 256 AD2d 418 [1998]; People v Griffin, 246 AD2d 668 [1998]).

[507]*507The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 11, 2001, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony of a detective that the defendant’s name came up in the course of investigating the criminal occurrence was not improper (see People v Brown, 262 AD2d 570 [1999], affd 95 NY2d 776 [2000]; People v Williams, 193 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1993]; People v Armstead, 134 AD2d 601 [1987]). Also, the trial court promptly cured any prejudice resulting from the detective’s testimony about a reference to the defendant made by a nontestifying witness when it instructed the jury to consider this evidence only for the purpose of understanding the detective’s conduct in response thereto (see People v Elliott, 256 AD2d 418 [1998]; People v Griffin, 246 AD2d 668 [1998]).

[507]*507The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 506, 808 N.Y.S.2d 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zachary-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack