People v. Binger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Binger

280 A.D.2d 390, 720 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1753

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 390 (People v. Binger) 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. Binger, 280 A.D.2d 390, 720 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), rendered March 19, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation did hot deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). The challenged remarks were, for the most part, proper responses to the defense summation, which included attacks on the complainant’s credibility. The prosecutor made proper, evidence-based comments on the credibility of defense witnesses and did not imply that defendant had a burden of proof. Any misstatement of the evidence was brief, trivial and could not have caused any prejudice. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), rendered March 19, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation did hot deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). The challenged remarks were, for the most part, proper responses to the defense summation, which included attacks on the complainant’s credibility. The prosecutor made proper, evidence-based comments on the credibility of defense witnesses and did not imply that defendant had a burden of proof. Any misstatement of the evidence was brief, trivial and could not have caused any prejudice. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 390, 720 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-binger-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack