People v. Wallason, 62 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Wallason, 62 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Exford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
If that were not so, all errors would be harmless in cases where the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Levy , 202 AD2d 242, 246 [1st Dept 1994]; People v Williams , 62 AD2d 1026, 1026 [2d Dept 1978]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Buchanon
N.Y. App. Div. · 1991 · signal: accord · confidence high
As Dorsey’s testimony was not assailed as a recent fabrication, it is not excepted from the general rule that "the testimony of a witness may not be corroborated or bolstered by evidence of prior consistent statements made before trial” (People v McClean, 69 NY2d 426, 428 ; accord, People v Williams, 62 AD2d 1026 ), whether those prior statements were written or oral (see, People v Major, 154 AD2d 225 , lv denied 75 NY2d 815 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
John Wallason
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 10, 1978.
62 A.D.2d 1026
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 9, 1975, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and possession of a weapon, etc., as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No contentions have been raised with respect to the findings of fact. The prosecutor’s repeated characterization of the defendant as a "liar” and his incitement of the jury’s fear of crime were improper and denied defendant a fair trial (see People v Shanis, 36 NY2d 697; People v Rogers, 59 AD2d 916, 918). This impropriety was further compounded by the court’s error, though harmless in and of itself, in failing to charge the jury with regard to motive (see People v Sangamino, 258 NY 85, 88). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.