People v. Bator

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bator

178 A.D.2d 928, 578 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17735

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 928 (People v. Bator) 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. Bator, 178 A.D.2d 928, 578 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived him of a fair trial. The statements of which defendant now complains were not so prejudicial as to require reversal, given the strength of the People’s case (see, People v Curley, 159 AD2d 969, 970, lv denied 76 NY2d 733; People v Banks, 124 AD2d 1064, lv denied 69 NY2d 824, cert denied 484 US 834).

The trial court adequately explained the applicable legal principles to the jury (CPL 300.10 [2]). Because this case was relatively uncomplicated and the jury was adequately apprised of defendant’s position, the court’s marshalling of the [929]*929evidence was not necessary to a fair trial (see, People v Patterson, 121 AD2d 406, lv denied 68 NY2d 759). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived him of a fair trial. The statements of which defendant now complains were not so prejudicial as to require reversal, given the strength of the People’s case (see, People v Curley, 159 AD2d 969, 970, lv denied 76 NY2d 733; People v Banks, 124 AD2d 1064, lv denied 69 NY2d 824, cert denied 484 US 834).

The trial court adequately explained the applicable legal principles to the jury (CPL 300.10 [2]). Because this case was relatively uncomplicated and the jury was adequately apprised of defendant’s position, the court’s marshalling of the [929]*929evidence was not necessary to a fair trial (see, People v Patterson, 121 AD2d 406, lv denied 68 NY2d 759). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 928, 578 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bator-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack