People v. Brunson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brunson

284 A.D.2d 406, 726 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 406 (People v. Brunson) 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. Brunson, 284 A.D.2d 406, 726 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered October 25, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because of improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation. However, the challenged statements were either fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial or fair responses to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Cook, 282 AD2d 617; People v Garcia, 273 AD2d 402; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953) and, in any event, without merit (see generally, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Smith and Cozier, 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 (Spires, J.), rendered October 25, 1999, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because of improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation. However, the challenged statements were either fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial or fair responses to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Cook, 282 AD2d 617; People v Garcia, 273 AD2d 402; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953) and, in any event, without merit (see generally, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133). Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 406, 726 N.Y.S.2d 281, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brunson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack