People v. Chaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chaney

155 A.D.2d 985, 548 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14876

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 985 (People v. Chaney) 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. Chaney, 155 A.D.2d 985, 548 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. [986]*986Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People’s evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and granting it all favorable inferences (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 436), we conclude that a valid line of reasoning exists to sustain the jury’s verdict (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination and summation. Because objection was made to only one of these alleged errors, these claims are largely unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 324). Further, many of the alleged prosecutorial improprieties on summation, including the only comment objected to, were fair comment in response to defense counsel’s closing statement (see, People v Anthony, 24 NY2d 696, 703-704; People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77-78). Although the prosecutor acted overzealously, impermissibly bolstering and vouching for his own witnesses and in one instance calling defendant a liar, we cannot say under all the circumstances that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Widger, 126 AD2d 962, lv denied 69 NY2d 1011; People v Barnes, 109 AD2d 179, 186; People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 36, affd 65 NY2d 837).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — murder, second degree.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. [986]*986Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People’s evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and granting it all favorable inferences (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 436), we conclude that a valid line of reasoning exists to sustain the jury’s verdict (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination and summation. Because objection was made to only one of these alleged errors, these claims are largely unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 324). Further, many of the alleged prosecutorial improprieties on summation, including the only comment objected to, were fair comment in response to defense counsel’s closing statement (see, People v Anthony, 24 NY2d 696, 703-704; People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77-78). Although the prosecutor acted overzealously, impermissibly bolstering and vouching for his own witnesses and in one instance calling defendant a liar, we cannot say under all the circumstances that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Widger, 126 AD2d 962, lv denied 69 NY2d 1011; People v Barnes, 109 AD2d 179, 186; People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 36, affd 65 NY2d 837).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — murder, second degree.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 985, 548 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chaney-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack