People v. Chappell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chappell

122 A.D.2d 889, 505 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59373

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

DecidedAugust 15, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 889 (People v. Chappell) 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. Chappell, 122 A.D.2d 889, 505 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demakos, J.), rendered October 14, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (four counts), rape in the first degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree (five counts), and robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt included identifications of him by two of the victims of the incident. Both of these people recognized the defendant because they had seen him previously on numerous occasions. We note that the trial court gave the defendant’s attorney ample latitude in his examination of the witnesses and in his summation. Any erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court must be regarded as harmless. Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Kooper 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, Kings County (Demakos, J.), rendered October 14, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (four counts), rape in the first degree (three counts), sodomy in the first degree (five counts), and robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt included identifications of him by two of the victims of the incident. Both of these people recognized the defendant because they had seen him previously on numerous occasions. We note that the trial court gave the defendant’s attorney ample latitude in his examination of the witnesses and in his summation. Any erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court must be regarded as harmless. Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 889, 505 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chappell-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack