People v. Abreu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Abreu

147 A.D.2d 707, 538 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2278

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 27, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Abreu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Abreu, 147 A.D.2d 707, 538 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered December 5, 1985, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s remark during defense counsel’s summation that "[djefense counsel has the right to call any witness she wants” did not deprive him of a fair trial. In her summation, defense counsel opened the door to the issue of control over possible witnesses by implying that the People had prevented certain witnesses from testifying or evidence from being presented (see, People v Hardwick, 122 AD2d 165). Even viewing the remark in its worst light, there is no "significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility * * * that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the [remark]” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242).

Finally, we find, under the circumstances, that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered December 5, 1985, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s remark during defense counsel’s summation that "[djefense counsel has the right to call any witness she wants” did not deprive him of a fair trial. In her summation, defense counsel opened the door to the issue of control over possible witnesses by implying that the People had prevented certain witnesses from testifying or evidence from being presented (see, People v Hardwick, 122 AD2d 165). Even viewing the remark in its worst light, there is no "significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility * * * that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the [remark]” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242).

Finally, we find, under the circumstances, that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 707, 538 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-abreu-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack