People v. Barker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barker

12 A.D.3d 454, 783 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13307

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 454 (People v. Barker) 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. Barker, 12 A.D.3d 454, 783 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered February 19, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to the remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the argument is without merit. The prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment on the trial evidence, and the court’s jury instruction regarding the limited purposes for which the Molineux evidence (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) could be used obviated any undue prejudice to the defendant (see People v Brown, 272 AD2d 338, 339 [2000]; People v Howe, 292 AD2d 542 [2002]; People v Armonte, 287 AD2d 645 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., Adams, Crane and Skelos, 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 (Starkey, J.), rendered February 19, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to the remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the argument is without merit. The prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment on the trial evidence, and the court’s jury instruction regarding the limited purposes for which the Molineux evidence (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) could be used obviated any undue prejudice to the defendant (see People v Brown, 272 AD2d 338, 339 [2000]; People v Howe, 292 AD2d 542 [2002]; People v Armonte, 287 AD2d 645 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., Adams, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 454, 783 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barker-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack