People v. Copeland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Copeland

201 A.D.2d 374, 609 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 374 (People v. Copeland) 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. Copeland, 201 A.D.2d 374, 609 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic S. Berman, J., at hearing; Rena K. Uviller, J., at trial), rendered November 21, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied, defendant having been identified at a prompt, at-the-scene showup (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545).

The challenged portions of the People’s summation did not [375]*375exceed the bounds of proper advocacy (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), and would, in any event, be considered harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic S. Berman, J., at hearing; Rena K. Uviller, J., at trial), rendered November 21, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied, defendant having been identified at a prompt, at-the-scene showup (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 545).

The challenged portions of the People’s summation did not [375]*375exceed the bounds of proper advocacy (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), and would, in any event, be considered harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 374, 609 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-copeland-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack