People v. Allien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Allien

302 A.D.2d 468, 753 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1355

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 468 (People v. Allien) 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. Allien, 302 A.D.2d 468, 753 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered November 27, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s questioning on cross-examination and suggestion during summation that the defendant tailored his testimony after a discussion with his attorney during the luncheon recess, was not unduly prejudicial (see Portuondo v Agard, 529 US 61; People v Lowery, 281 AD2d 491). The prosecutor properly attacked the defendant’s credibility, and his comments on summation were fair responses to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Banks, 258 AD2d 525, 526; People v Elliot, 216 AD2d 576). As such, the prosecutor’s questions and remarks were within the bounds of fair comment.

The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing defense counsel from straying from the evidence on summation (see People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 329; People v Laboy, 202 AD2d 325).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Mastro, 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, Kangs County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered November 27, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s questioning on cross-examination and suggestion during summation that the defendant tailored his testimony after a discussion with his attorney during the luncheon recess, was not unduly prejudicial (see Portuondo v Agard, 529 US 61; People v Lowery, 281 AD2d 491). The prosecutor properly attacked the defendant’s credibility, and his comments on summation were fair responses to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Banks, 258 AD2d 525, 526; People v Elliot, 216 AD2d 576). As such, the prosecutor’s questions and remarks were within the bounds of fair comment.

The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing defense counsel from straying from the evidence on summation (see People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 329; People v Laboy, 202 AD2d 325).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 468, 753 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allien-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack