Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 N.Y.2d 59

People v. Fearon

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 10, 1963

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1963-07-10

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1970

3 state decisions

Relies on Magoohan v. Curran

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-07-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chief Judge Desmond.

¶1Defendant 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.

¶2While 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.

¶3The judgment should be affirmed.

¶4Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vooehis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/13/ny2d/59 · .json · Public domain