People v. Caffee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caffee

247 A.D.2d 401, 667 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 805

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered November 17, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the [402]*402prosecution’s request that the defendant stand before the members of the jury in order that they might get a closer look at the condition of the defendant’s skin (see, People v Brown, 133 AD2d 464, 465; cf., People v Gunther, 175 AD2d 262, 265). The complaining witness had previously testified that the perpetrator had “bumpy” skin.

Furthermore, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced when a court officer was positioned near the jury box where the defendant was requested to stand (see, People v Ortega, 224 AD2d 552).

Joy, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein 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, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered November 17, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the [402]*402prosecution’s request that the defendant stand before the members of the jury in order that they might get a closer look at the condition of the defendant’s skin (see, People v Brown, 133 AD2d 464, 465; cf., People v Gunther, 175 AD2d 262, 265). The complaining witness had previously testified that the perpetrator had “bumpy” skin.

Furthermore, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced when a court officer was positioned near the jury box where the defendant was requested to stand (see, People v Ortega, 224 AD2d 552).

Joy, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Caffee, 247 A.D.2d 401, 667 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

247 A.D.2d 401 (People v. Caffee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related