People v. Billups

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Billups

307 A.D.2d 323, 762 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 323 (People v. Billups) 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. Billups, 307 A.D.2d 323, 762 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered November 28, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s summation comment regarding the defendant’s failure to call his former girlfriend as a witness did not, in light of the defendant’s testimony, constitute an impermissible effort to shift the burden of proof (see People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994 [1994]; People v Rivera, 292 AD2d 549 [2002]; see also People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519 [1977]). While the prosecutor improperly implied during her summation that the defendant should have called someone named “Jimmy” as a witness, such error does not warrant reversal under the circumstances of this case (see People v Ayers, 214 AD2d 459 [1995]; see also People v De Jesus, supra). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes 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, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered November 28, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s summation comment regarding the defendant’s failure to call his former girlfriend as a witness did not, in light of the defendant’s testimony, constitute an impermissible effort to shift the burden of proof (see People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994 [1994]; People v Rivera, 292 AD2d 549 [2002]; see also People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519 [1977]). While the prosecutor improperly implied during her summation that the defendant should have called someone named “Jimmy” as a witness, such error does not warrant reversal under the circumstances of this case (see People v Ayers, 214 AD2d 459 [1995]; see also People v De Jesus, supra). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 323, 762 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-billups-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack