People v. Houghton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Callahan, J. P.,
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. In my view, the court’s comments about defendant’s opportunity to testify were patently improper and constituted reversible error even in the absence of a proper objection (see, People v McLucas, 15 NY2d 167; People v Mercado, 120 AD2d 619).
The record reveals that in precluding a defense witness from testifying about statements made by defendant, the court instructed the jury: "I’ll not allow, I mean, you are not to consider the testimony of this or any other witness as to what the defendant says. If the defendant is going to testify, he…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Ruloff v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.