People v. Caruso

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Caruso

383 N.E.2d 109, 45 N.Y.2d 881, 410 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2306

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 N.E.2d 109 (People v. Caruso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Caruso, 383 N.E.2d 109, 45 N.Y.2d 881, 410 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2306 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Despite the inexcusable character of the prosecutor’s summation in stressing the role of defense counsel, without objective justification, the error does not call for reversal because it was without practical effect. The improprieties are sufficiently detailed in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division. A jury would hardly be moved by the rhetorical efforts of the young and inexperienced prosecutor. Her improper efforts were not such as to make the conduct of defense counsel, instead of that of defendant, the subject of the jury’s inquiry.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Despite the inexcusable character of the prosecutor’s summation in stressing the role of defense counsel, without objective justification, the error does not call for reversal because it was without practical effect. The improprieties are sufficiently detailed in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division. A jury would hardly be moved by the rhetorical efforts of the young and inexperienced prosecutor. Her improper efforts were not such as to make the conduct of defense counsel, instead of that of defendant, the subject of the jury’s inquiry.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.E.2d 109, 45 N.Y.2d 881, 410 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caruso-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack