People v. Bristole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bristole

237 A.D.2d 454, 655 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2516

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1997·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered January 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, although the challenged summation comment made by the prosecutor was improper, the trial court averted any potential prejudice by properly instructing the jury that [455] the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt remained with the People (see, People v Steven, 218 AD2d 678; People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300; People v Contreras, 194 AD2d 685, 686).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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 (Eng, J.), rendered January 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, although the challenged summation comment made by the prosecutor was improper, the trial court averted any potential prejudice by properly instructing the jury that [455] the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt remained with the People (see, People v Steven, 218 AD2d 678; People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300; People v Contreras, 194 AD2d 685, 686).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Bristole, 237 A.D.2d 454, 655 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 454 (People v. Bristole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related