People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 02 June 1977 |
| Citation | 366 N.E.2d 80,397 N.Y.S.2d 380,42 N.Y.2d 841 |
| Parties | , 366 N.E.2d 80 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Horace JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Rowan Peter Kirchheimer and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (George P. McKeegan and Peter L. Zimroth, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
We need not reach the issue of the propriety of the conduct of the police in destroying tape recordings of various conversations with the defendant, based upon their independent judgment that the tapes were inaudible and contained no exculpatory material, since this issue was not preserved for our review (cf. People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1013, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920, 921).
The only objections raised by defendant related to certain procedures which the court, at a pretrial hearing, announced it planned to use at the trial in determining the relationship between the tapes and certain police reports. At the trial, however, defendant made no inquiry at all with respect to the tapes, nor did he request their production. Further he failed to request any charge regarding the tapes or make any posttrial motions concerning them. In sum, the defendant raised no issue in connection with the tapes calling for a ruling or instruction by the trial court. Thus, there are no reviewable rulings at issue before us on this appeal (CPL 470.35, subd. 1).
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...his trial objection to the ground that the prosecutor was falsely stating the contents of the notice, and in People v. Johnson, 42 N.Y.2d 841, 842, 397 N.Y.S.2d 380, 366 N.E.2d 80, the court again declined to reach an issue (i. e., the propriety of police conduct in destroying certain tape ......
-
People v. Jordan
...(see CPL 470.05, subd. 2; People v. Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42, 48-49, 444 N.Y.S.2d 581, 429 N.E.2d 100; People v. Johnson, 42 N.Y.2d 841, 397 N.Y.S.2d 380, 366 N.E.2d 80; People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 455, 387 N.Y.S.2d 62, 354 N.E.2d 801, cert. den. 433 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2986, 53 L.Ed......
-
Barber v. Scully, 506
...CPL 30.30 to constitutional grounds. Under such circumstances, the issues have not been preserved for review (People v. Johnson, 42 NY2d 841 [397 N.Y.S.2d 380, 366 N.E.2d 80]; People v. Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011 [384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920]; People v. Adams, 38 NY2d 605 [381 N.Y.S.2d 847, 34......
-
People v. Gutierrez
...305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841). The defendant's other contentions are unpreserved for our review (see, People v. Johnson, 42 N.Y.2d 841, 397 N.Y.S.2d 380, 366 N.E.2d 80; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 36-39, 440 N.Y.S.2d 248), and, in any event, are without merit (see, People v. Paranzino, 4......