People v. Morgan
People v. Morgan
Opinion
People v Morgan (2025 NY Slip Op 05740)
| People v Morgan |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05740 |
| Decided on October 16, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 16, 2025
No. 82
v
Arthur H. Morgan Jr., Appellant.
Steven M. Sharp, for appellant.
Christopher Liberati-Conant, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
There is support in the record for the trial judge's determination that the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges at issue were not pretextual (see People v Wright, 42 NY3d 708, 714-715 [2024]).
Defendant's challenge to the trial court's jury instruction on first-degree manslaughter as a lesser-included offense, his constitutional challenge to admission of prior testimony, and his arguments regarding the alleged use of propensity evidence in summation, as well as those concerning cross-examination of certain trial witnesses, are unpreserved. Defendant also failed to preserve his argument that his right to counsel was violated when he was interviewed by officers after a lawyer had purportedly communicated with the police for the purpose of representing him.
Defendant's remaining arguments are without merit.
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided October 16, 2025
Opinion
People v Morgan (2025 NY Slip Op 05740)
| People v Morgan |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05740 |
| Decided on October 16, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 16, 2025
No. 82
v
Arthur H. Morgan Jr., Appellant.
Steven M. Sharp, for appellant.
Christopher Liberati-Conant, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
There is support in the record for the trial judge's determination that the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges at issue were not pretextual (see People v Wright, 42 NY3d 708, 714-715 [2024]).
Defendant's challenge to the trial court's jury instruction on first-degree manslaughter as a lesser-included offense, his constitutional challenge to admission of prior testimony, and his arguments regarding the alleged use of propensity evidence in summation, as well as those concerning cross-examination of certain trial witnesses, are unpreserved. Defendant also failed to preserve his argument that his right to counsel was violated when he was interviewed by officers after a lawyer had purportedly communicated with the police for the purpose of representing him.
Defendant's remaining arguments are without merit.
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided October 16, 2025
Opinion
People v Morgan (2025 NY Slip Op 05740)
| People v Morgan |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05740 |
| Decided on October 16, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 16, 2025
No. 82
v
Arthur H. Morgan Jr., Appellant.
Steven M. Sharp, for appellant.
Christopher Liberati-Conant, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
There is support in the record for the trial judge's determination that the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges at issue were not pretextual (see People v Wright, 42 NY3d 708, 714-715 [2024]).
Defendant's challenge to the trial court's jury instruction on first-degree manslaughter as a lesser-included offense, his constitutional challenge to admission of prior testimony, and his arguments regarding the alleged use of propensity evidence in summation, as well as those concerning cross-examination of certain trial witnesses, are unpreserved. Defendant also failed to preserve his argument that his right to counsel was violated when he was interviewed by officers after a lawyer had purportedly communicated with the police for the purpose of representing him.
Defendant's remaining arguments are without merit.
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided October 16, 2025
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.