People v. Singh

Student’s Name
Course Instructor
Course Title
Date
People V. Singh
Case: People v. Singh
Case Facts: Defendant was convicted of burglary of second degree but was dissatisfied by the decision and thus moved to the Supreme Court. Defendant was unable to indicate that he had counsel moved for a Huntley hearing. There was an issue with the videotape because the bulgur took place during the evening, but the video was prepared during the day. The defendant claimed that the statements offered were not of truth.
Procedural History: The defendant was presented to the Erie County Court. He was being accused of burglary. He was convicted in the county court and thus appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective.
The court disallowed counsel to question the officer who arrested the defendant during his arrest.
Rebuttal testimony was purposely used for impeachment reasons thus notice of intent was not required.
Holding: Yes. The testimony that they had concerning the observation of the defendant during the offensive period was not presented to the chief. When rebuttal testimony is offered for the sake of impeachment, the notice is usually not vital.
Reasoning:
Rule: Where there is rebuttal testimony, the notice plays no role.
Concurrence1: The council does not need ineffective assistance. That is because they were sure of what they had and thus the help offered sounded infective to them. There were additional discoveries that the defendant failed to produce.

Concurrence 2: The rebuttal testimony concerning the arresting officer was correct as the arresting officer would be able to recall the defendant and the second perpetrator.
Dissent 1: The defendant statements were not immaterial because they did not prove anything in the case. Those reports were not utilized by the chief because they were exculpatory.
Citation omitted