People v. Arroyo

Decision Date25 April 1991
Citation77 N.Y.2d 947,573 N.E.2d 569,570 N.Y.S.2d 481
Parties, 573 N.E.2d 569 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reynaldo ARROYO, also known as Reynardo Arroyo, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 162 A.D.2d 337, 557 N.Y.S.2d 898, should be affirmed.

While defendant now urges that the trial court committed reversible error in precluding him from calling his mother as a witness to corroborate certain details of his account of the night of the robbery, his offer of proof was insufficient to alert the trial court to the relevance of the testimony. For that reason, the trial court's exclusion of the witness was not reversible error. Defendant's remaining arguments, to the extent preserved, are without merit.

WACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK and BELLACOSA, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Ochoa, 2004 NY Slip Op 51133(U) (NY 6/28/2004)
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 2004
    ...the prosecution's witnesses. See People v. Burgos, 207 A.D.2d 656 (1st Dept. 1994), lv. denied, 84 N.Y.2d 906 (1994), citing, People v. Arroyo 77 N.Y.2d 947 (1991), and Gottlieb, ORDERED, that the motion by Defendants is denied. The foregoing constitutes the decision and opinion of the Court. ...
  • Berry v. Artus, 08-CV-0807(MAT)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 9, 2010
    ...testify with respect to the statement in question does not constitute reversible error. Berry, 43 A.D.3d at 1366-67 (citing People v Arroyo, 77 N.Y.2d 947, 948 (1991)). The respondent urges the Court to find petitioner's claim of evidentiary error procedurally barred. While it appears the A......
  • People v. Modzelewski
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 25, 1994
    ...to demonstrate that the communication was not protected by the attorney-client privilege (see, e.g., People v. Arroyo, 77 N.Y.2d 947, 948, 570 N.Y.S.2d 481, 573 N.E.2d 569; cf., People v. Gilliam, supra; People v. Thomas, 140 A.D.2d 562, 564, 528 N.Y.S.2d 634; People v. Forbes, 87 A.D.2d 82......
  • People v. Chadwick
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 2, 1996
    ...v. Gilmore, 66 N.Y.2d 863, 498 N.Y.S.2d 752, 489 N.E.2d 721; People v. Arroyo, 162 A.D.2d 337, 557 N.Y.S.2d 898, aff'd 77 N.Y.2d 947, 570 N.Y.S.2d 481, 573 N.E.2d 569). Defendant was also permitted to question police witnesses about the non-performance of the tests in It was a proper exerci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT