People v. Covington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Covington

49 A.D.2d 951, 374 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11236

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 951 (People v. Covington) 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. Covington, 49 A.D.2d 951, 374 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered October 16, 1974, the first convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and the second convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgments affirmed. The District Attorney should not have referred to defendant’s failure to call a particular witness, but in view of the nature of the error as to that and of the overwhelming proof at the trial of defendant’s guilt, there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to defendant’s conviction (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). No objections were made by the defense when the comment was made and no corrective instructions were requested. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered October 16, 1974, the first convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and the second convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgments affirmed. The District Attorney should not have referred to defendant’s failure to call a particular witness, but in view of the nature of the error as to that and of the overwhelming proof at the trial of defendant’s guilt, there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to defendant’s conviction (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). No objections were made by the defense when the comment was made and no corrective instructions were requested. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 951, 374 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-covington-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack