People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 10 November 1987 |
| Citation | 522 N.Y.S.2d 70,134 A.D.2d 915 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Terrance JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Terrance Jones, pro se.
Peter L. Broderick, Niagara County Dist. Atty., by George Burgasser, Lockport, for respondent.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and DENMAN, BOOMER, GREEN and BALIO, JJ.
On appeal from a judgment convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, defendant's major claims are that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce, on rebuttal, testimony of his previously suppressed oral statement to a police detective and in failing to instruct the jury that such testimony could be considered only on the issue of defendant's credibility. Neither claim requires reversal. A statement obtained in violation of a defendant's right to counsel may be used for impeachment on rebuttal, provided the defendant is informed of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement and is asked whether he in fact made it (People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134, 485 N.Y.S.2d 23, 474 N.E.2d 231; People v. Washington, 51 N.Y.2d 214, 433 N.Y.S.2d 745, 413 N.E.2d 1159; People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 326, 413 N.Y.S.2d 334, 385 N.E.2d 1262). A proper foundation was established for the rebuttal testimony. Defendant made no request for limiting instructions relating to such testimony and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (cf., People v. Grainger, 114 A.D.2d 285, 290, 498 N.Y.S.2d 940; People v. Gold, 57 A.D.2d 575, 393 N.Y.S.2d 440). We have considered defendant's remaining claims preserved for review and find that none requires a reversal.
Since it is not clear whether defendant was being sentenced as a second felony offender or as a second violent felony offender and since the court mistakenly assumed that the minimum sentence was a term of 9-18 years (Penal Law § 70.04[3][a] & [4] ), we vacate the sentence imposed and defendant is remanded for resentencing.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Hollins
...that it had considered the remaining claims preserved for review and found "that none requires reversal." People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 915, 522 N.Y.S.2d 70, 71 (4th Dept.1987). However, the court vacated the sentence and remanded petitioner for resentencing, finding the record unclear as to ......
-
Jones v. Speckard, No. 88-CV-688E.
...sentence was vacated, his conviction, as modified, was affirmed and the case was remanded for resentencing. People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 915, 522 N.Y.S.2d 70 (4th Dept. 1987). The trial judge resentenced Petitioner to the same 9 to 18-year indeterminate term. On May 19, 1988, the Court of Ap......
-
People v. Fedrick
...counsel, was admissible in rebuttal to impeach defendant's testimony that he had no drug supplier in Los Angeles (see, People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 915, 522 N.Y.S.2d 70, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1028, 530 N.Y.S.2d 563, 526 N.E.2d 56). By failing to object to admission of the testimony on the gro......
-
People v. Vann
...admitted for the purposes of impeachment (see, People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134, 140, 485 N.Y.S.2d 23, 474 N.E.2d 231; People v. Jones, 134 A.D.2d 915, 522 N.Y.S.2d 70, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1028, 530 N.Y.S.2d 563, 526 N.E.2d 56; cf., People v. Ames, 126 A.D.2d 731, 511 N.Y.S.2d 320, lv. de......