People v. Credle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Credle

12 A.D.3d 456, 783 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 456 (People v. Credle) 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. Credle, 12 A.D.3d 456, 783 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gorges, J.), rendered June 27, 2002, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s summation comments denied him a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Livigni, 288 AD2d 323 [2001]). In any event, although some comments in the prosecutor’s summation were improper, any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated by the court’s actions in sustaining the defense counsel’s objections and issuing curative instructions, and by the court’s charge to the jury (see People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]; People v Howe, 292 AD2d 542, 542-543 [2002]). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, 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 (Gorges, J.), rendered June 27, 2002, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s summation comments denied him a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Livigni, 288 AD2d 323 [2001]). In any event, although some comments in the prosecutor’s summation were improper, any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated by the court’s actions in sustaining the defense counsel’s objections and issuing curative instructions, and by the court’s charge to the jury (see People v Thomas, 8 AD3d 303 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 682 [2004]; People v Howe, 292 AD2d 542, 542-543 [2002]). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 456, 783 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-credle-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack