People v. Botez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Botez

214 A.D.2d 748, 625 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4486

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

DecidedApril 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 748 (People v. Botez) 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. Botez, 214 A.D.2d 748, 625 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered July 22, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that reversible error occurred due to the prosecutor’s remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the remarks which he now challenges on appeal (see, CPL 470.05 [749]*749[2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, the remarks were either a fair comment on the evidence, a fair response to defense counsel’s summation, or were not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

Further, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Goldstein, 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 (Gerges, J.), rendered July 22, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that reversible error occurred due to the prosecutor’s remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the remarks which he now challenges on appeal (see, CPL 470.05 [749]*749[2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, the remarks were either a fair comment on the evidence, a fair response to defense counsel’s summation, or were not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

Further, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 748, 625 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-botez-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack