People v. James

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WACHTLER
• Citation: People v. James, 554 N.Y.S.2d 465, 75 N.Y.2d 874, 553 N.E.2d 1013 (N.Y. 1990)
• Decision Date: 22 March 1990
• Parties: , 553 N.E.2d 1013 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dwight JAMES, Appellant.

Page 465

554 N.Y.S.2d 465

75 N.Y.2d 874, 553 N.E.2d 1013

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dwight JAMES, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 22, 1990.

[75 N.Y.2d 875] Jeffrey Dellheim and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Sylvia Wertheimer and Mark Dwyer, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate division, 144 A.D.2d 1042, 535 N.Y.S.2d 286, should be affirmed.

At trial the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the prosecution had failed to corroborate accomplice testimony. This argument was based on the contention that a prosecution witness, Melvin Rogers, was an accomplice as a matter of law. This contention was rejected by the trial court and has been abandoned by the defendant on the appeal. The defendant now contends that Melvin Rogers' testimony was insufficient to corroborate the accomplice. Alternatively it is contended that the court, in effect, should have charged the jury that it must acquit the defendant if it found that he was an accomplice, as a matter of fact, because there was no other evidence sufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony.

Because neither of these points was presented to the trial court, they have not been preserved for our review. The defendant's argument that the latter point need not be preserved by such a request, is based on the dissenting opinion in People v. Doyle, 304 N.Y. 120, 106 N.E.2d 42), which is not a...