New York Court of Appeals, 1980

People v. Bowen

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 12, 1980

50 N.Y.2d 915; 409 N.E.2d 924; 431 N.Y.S.2d 449; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2479

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Gilmore v. Henderson (District Court, E.D. New York 1986)
The People v. Perry C. Griggs (N.Y. 2016)
Voulkoudis v. Frantzeskakis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Reynoso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Leitzsey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. De George (N.Y. 1989)
People v. Rawlings (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Harrington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Morris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Appellant tenders two issues. With respect to the first — the propriety of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant as to his failure at the time of his arrest to come forward with the exculpatory version of the episode to which he testified on trial — it appears that the issue is not preserved for our review inasmuch as no timely protest was registered.

As to the second — the propriety of the denial of defendant’s motion to preclude cross-examination with respect to the facts underlying a prior charge of reckless endangerment — there is nothing to warrant our disturbing the determination of the Appellate Division (cf. People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274). Any error in the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that this testimony should be considered for purposes of impeachment only was not preserved in view of the absence of any request for such instruction.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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