People v. Walker, 525 N.E.2d 748 (NY 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Walker, 525 N.E.2d 748 (NY 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Lippe (nyappdiv, 2016-12-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lippe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the County Court erred when it denied his motion, made before the first trial, to present expert testimony on the issue of false confessions is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not renew that motion prior to the second trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Walker, 71 NY2d 1018, 1020 [1988]; People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 758 [1984]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rodriguez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
“Orderly and fair procedure requires that the trial court be given timely and adequate opportunity to rule on and explain claims in the context of the trial and trial record which has relevance to the issue advanced.” (People v Walker, 71 NY2d 1018, 1020 [1988].) Defendant made his successful severance motion before a different justice, many months prior to trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Craig
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his challenges to County Court’s evidentiary rulings (see People v Cunningham, 12 AD3d 1131, 1132-1133 [2004]), including his contentions that he was denied his right of confrontation by the admission of testimony suggesting that he had been implicated by his codefendant (see People v Walker, 71 NY2d 1018, 1019-1020 [1988], rearg denied 72 NY2d 953 [1988]; People v Carter, 1 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 738 [2004]) and by the court’s restriction of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness (see People v Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501,…
examined Cited "see" Bossett v. Walker (3×)
2d Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Walker, 129 A.D.2d 658 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 272, 272-73 (N.Y.App.Div.1987), aff'd, 71 N.Y.2d 1018 , 530 N.Y.S.2d 103 , 525 N.E.2d 748 (1988).
examined Cited "see" Bossett v. Walker (3×)
2d Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Walker, 129 A.D.2d 658 , 514 N.Y.S.2d 272, 272-73 (N.Y.App.Div.1987), aff'd, 71 N.Y.2d 1018 , 530 N.Y.S.2d 103 , 525 N.E.2d 748 (1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Kenneth Walker
New York Court of Appeals.
May 31, 1988.
525 N.E.2d 748
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, George Grun and John F. Middlemiss, Jr., for appellant., Patrick Henry, District Attorney (Emily A. Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant and two codefendants, Darrell and Michael Bossett, were jointly tried before a jury in connection with the stabbing death of Donald McGirth. The prosecution’s theory of the case was that the Bossett brothers and defendant, acting together, murdered McGirth as revenge for the shooting of Leslie "Lay Lay” Covington, who had been shot by rival drug dealers with whom McGirth was associated.

The first joint trial resulted in a mistrial. A second joint trial was held during which a civilian witness testified that when told of McGirth’s death, Darrell Bossett responded, "Really, that’s good. They would all pay. We did it for Lay Lay.” When asked if he knew who killed McGirth, the same witness testified that Darrell responded, "We did it.” Defendant Walker was convicted of murder, second degree, and the Appellate Division affirmed (129 AD2d 658).

On appeal defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a severance of trial and that his right to confrontation was violated by the denial of that[*1020] motion (US Const 6th Amend; People v Cruz, 66 NY2d 61, 66, revd on other grounds 481 US —, 107 S Ct 1714, on remand 70 NY2d 733; Bruton v United States, 391 US 123).

Appellant Walker’s motion to sever was made orally prior to the commencement of the first trial. It was not renewed prior to commencement of the second trial, nor for that matter at any time during the second trial, and that is a fatal procedural defect based on sound preservation principles. Orderly and fair procedure requires that the trial court be given timely and adequate opportunity to rule on and explain claims in the context of the trial and trial record which has relevance to the issue advanced. There was no assertion on the pertinent issue in the only trial of any legal import and, thus, it is not preserved for our review.

Moreover, our requirement for this preservation threshold here is fortified by People v Cruz (66 NY2d 61, 66, revd on other grounds 481 US —, 107 S Ct 1714, on remand 70 NY2d 733, supra) itself, where the first trial also resulted in a mistrial but defendant’s original motion to sever was renewed prior to the second trial.

Defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or unpreserved.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.