People v. Cathcart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cathcart

154 A.D.2d 939, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 939 (People v. Cathcart) 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. Cathcart, 154 A.D.2d 939, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Each claim raised by defendant on his appeal from a conviction for second degree murder lacks merit. The trial court properly denied defendant’s application for substitution of assigned counsel because defendant did not establish good cause to justify the request (see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208-209; People v Rodriguez, 98 AD2d 961, 962, cert denied 469 US 818). Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct were, for the most part, unpreserved and lack merit in any event. The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defense witnesses was proper and the prosecutor’s summation was fair response to defense counsel’s summation. We have reviewed the court’s charge and find it adequate and proper in all respects. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Each claim raised by defendant on his appeal from a conviction for second degree murder lacks merit. The trial court properly denied defendant’s application for substitution of assigned counsel because defendant did not establish good cause to justify the request (see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199, 208-209; People v Rodriguez, 98 AD2d 961, 962, cert denied 469 US 818). Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct were, for the most part, unpreserved and lack merit in any event. The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defense witnesses was proper and the prosecutor’s summation was fair response to defense counsel’s summation. We have reviewed the court’s charge and find it adequate and proper in all respects. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 939, 546 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cathcart-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack