People v. Barham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barham

170 A.D.2d 270, 565 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1499

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 270 (People v. Barham) 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. Barham, 170 A.D.2d 270, 565 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J.), rendered April 11, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to two concurrent prison terms of three to nine years, unanimously affirmed.

After defendant and his accomplices pushed the complainant off a train and onto a subway platform, they forcibly stole his gold chain. Since the People presented legally sufficient evidence of the complainant’s "impairment of physical condition”, defendant’s conviction of robbery in the second degree is unassailable (Penal Law § 160.10 [2]; § 10.00 [9]; People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726). The complainant missed three days of work and saw a doctor as result of the punches to his face and ribs. Furthermore, three witnesses corroborated the fact that the complainant’s face was bloodied and swollen.

Although the prosecutor should not have equated the jury returning a guilty verdict with the acts of a Good Samaritan who came to the complainant’s aid, any prejudice caused by this single improper summation comment was harmless. Finally, since the court adequately advised the jury of the legal principles applicable to the facts of the case, the court did not deprive defendant of a fair trial by failing to marshall the evidence (CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Jackson, 125 AD2d 410, 411). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J.), rendered April 11, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to two concurrent prison terms of three to nine years, unanimously affirmed.

After defendant and his accomplices pushed the complainant off a train and onto a subway platform, they forcibly stole his gold chain. Since the People presented legally sufficient evidence of the complainant’s "impairment of physical condition”, defendant’s conviction of robbery in the second degree is unassailable (Penal Law § 160.10 [2]; § 10.00 [9]; People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726). The complainant missed three days of work and saw a doctor as result of the punches to his face and ribs. Furthermore, three witnesses corroborated the fact that the complainant’s face was bloodied and swollen.

Although the prosecutor should not have equated the jury returning a guilty verdict with the acts of a Good Samaritan who came to the complainant’s aid, any prejudice caused by this single improper summation comment was harmless. Finally, since the court adequately advised the jury of the legal principles applicable to the facts of the case, the court did not deprive defendant of a fair trial by failing to marshall the evidence (CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Jackson, 125 AD2d 410, 411). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 270, 565 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barham-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack