From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gooding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 31, 1994
202 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.).


As defendant was present during the jury voir dire, had the opportunity to consult with his counsel before and after the challenges were registered during robing room conferences (at which he was not present), but was present in the courtroom when the parties' challenges were formally effected, expressing his satisfaction therewith, defendant was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of his trial (People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 473; People v. Walker, 202 A.D.2d 312).

The trial court properly denied defendant's request for a jury charge regarding a "prior inconsistent statement", as no evidence was presented that the witness had verified the accuracy of the arresting officer's memobook notation, described by the officer as his "interpretation" of what the witness (whose native language is not English) had told him hours before the entry was made (see, People v. Barber, 186 A.D.2d 483, 484, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 836).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Gooding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 31, 1994
202 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Gooding

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND GOODING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 31, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 831

Citing Cases

People v. Wilfredo

The court sufficiently instructed the jury on the subject of inconsistencies in testimony. Since the…

People v. White

When confronted with the alleged inconsistency on cross-examination, the victim denied making any such…