Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Houghton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 15, 1989Published

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

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Ruloff v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1871

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API