New York Court of Appeals, 1963

People v. Fearon

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 10, 1963 · Desmond

13 N.Y.2d 59; 192 N.E.2d 8; 242 N.Y.S.2d 33; 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1021

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Ex Parte Thorbus (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
United States Ex Rel. Hunter v. Follette (District Court, S.D. New York 1969)
People v. Eddins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Wanass (Emad) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Wanass (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Harrison (N.Y. 1995)
People v. Cameron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Battle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Harrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Glass (N.Y. 1977)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People v. Flynn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
People v. Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Judge Desmond.

Defendant argues that his conviction should have been reversed in the Appellate Division because the record on appeal in that court did not contain the summations of counsel. Apparently the summations were not taken down by the stenographer except as to one part of the prosecutor’s speech to which defendant objected and a similar incident during the summation by defense counsel. Neither of these excerpts shows any erroneous ruling or any serious misconduct. As to the argument that in every criminal cause the closing speeches of counsel must be recorded in full, the Judges of this court know from experience as well as from records filed with us that in many parts of the State (as in other States — see, for instance, Magoohan v. Curran, 71 Conn. 551) such has not been the practice. However, various statutes (see Code Crim. Pro., §§ 388, 456, 458, 485; Judiciary Law, § 295) if read literally require that “ the entire proceedings” of the trial be taken down stenographically.

While the present record shows an absence of prejudice to defendant from a failure to record the summations as well as an implied waiver of such recording, it would seem to be better practice in criminal causes for the Judge to order the summations to be taken down by the stenographer unless both counsel stipulate to the contrary.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vooehis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.