People v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Campbell

126 A.D.2d 658, 511 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41786

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 658 (People v. Campbell) 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. Campbell, 126 A.D.2d 658, 511 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered August 13, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that a detective’s testimony improperly inferentially bolstered the complainant’s identification of him (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819). However, no timely objection to the detective’s testimony was made. Therefore, the issue of law is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Liccione, 50 NY2d 850), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either not preserved for our review or are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, 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 (Naro, J.), rendered August 13, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that a detective’s testimony improperly inferentially bolstered the complainant’s identification of him (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819). However, no timely objection to the detective’s testimony was made. Therefore, the issue of law is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Liccione, 50 NY2d 850), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either not preserved for our review or are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 658, 511 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-campbell-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack