People v. Cheek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cheek

121 A.D.2d 649, 503 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58634

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

DecidedJune 23, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 649 (People v. Cheek) 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. Cheek, 121 A.D.2d 649, 503 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered April 12, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including his identity, was overwhelming since he was apprehended immediately following the robbery after only a short chase by the police who chanced upon the robbery while it. was in progress. The complainant had adequate opportunity to observe the perpetrators during the robbery and, before any potential for suggestiveness could arise, stated that he felt "reasonably certain” that the individuals that the police caught a minute later were among the youths who had robbed him.

The prosecutor’s remark to the jurors in summation concerning reasonable doubt might best have been left to the court’s charge (see, People v Robinson, 83 AD2d 887; People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, rearg denied 29 NY2d 749). However, the remark had no prejudicial effect (compare, People v Feldman, 296 NY 127; and People v Robinson, supra; with 1 CJI [NY] 620 p 249), and was, in any case, harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, 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 (Douglass, J.), rendered April 12, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including his identity, was overwhelming since he was apprehended immediately following the robbery after only a short chase by the police who chanced upon the robbery while it. was in progress. The complainant had adequate opportunity to observe the perpetrators during the robbery and, before any potential for suggestiveness could arise, stated that he felt "reasonably certain” that the individuals that the police caught a minute later were among the youths who had robbed him.

The prosecutor’s remark to the jurors in summation concerning reasonable doubt might best have been left to the court’s charge (see, People v Robinson, 83 AD2d 887; People v Boulware, 29 NY2d 135, rearg denied 29 NY2d 749). However, the remark had no prejudicial effect (compare, People v Feldman, 296 NY 127; and People v Robinson, supra; with 1 CJI [NY] 620 p 249), and was, in any case, harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 649, 503 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cheek-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack