People v. Favor
The People of the State of New York v. Donald Favor
Subsequent history: aff'd in part, rev'd in part, People v. Favor, 624 N.E.2d 631 (N.Y. 1993). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to refer to unreliable chemical test results in his opening statement. We disagree. The court instructed the jury that the opening statements did not constitute evidence. The court also told the jury to disregard the chemist’s testimony about the testing procedures.
Defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that the court erred in conducting a Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 ) in his absence and, since defendant did not establish prejudice, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Dunbar, 172 AD2d 1006 [decided herewith]). Defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.