People v Cooke

Annotate this Case
People v Cooke 2015 NY Slip Op 01557 Decided on February 24, 2015 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 24, 2015
No. 73 SSM 31

[*1]The People & c., Respondent,

v

Robert J. Cooke, Appellant.



Submitted by Mary P. Davison, for appellant.

Submitted by John C. Tunney, for respondent.



MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The trial court's failure to make a finding of necessity for the stun belt's use does [*2]not constitute an unwaivable mode of proceedings error (see People v Buchanan, 13 NY3d 1, 4 [2009]; see generally People v Hanley, 20 NY3d 601, 604 [2013]; People v Schrock, 108 AD3d 1221, 1224-1225 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013], reconsideration denied 23 NY3d 1025 [2014]; see also People v Gamble, 18 NY3d 386, 396-397 [2012], rearg denied 19 NY3d 833 [2012]). Thus, as defendant never objected, and indeed expressly consented to wearing a stun belt at trial, he waived his contention that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was restrained by means of that security device (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600 [1978]; cf. Buchanan, 13 NY3d at 3). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam and Stein concur. Judge Fahey took no part.

Decided February 24, 2015



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.