People v. Daise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daise

220 A.D.2d 524, 632 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9916

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 524 (People v. Daise) 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. Daise, 220 A.D.2d 524, 632 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered September 27, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the hearing court was biased because it allegedly curtailed his cross-examination of a police witness is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886). In any event, the claim is baseless. The questions that allegedly were curtailed had little or no relevance to the purpose of the hearing and the People’s objections thereto were properly sustained.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the admission into evidence of a post-arrest photograph showing the defendant lying on the floor holding his leg did not deprive him of a fair trial. The photograph was properly admitted since it had some probative value and it did not portray the defendant in a prejudicial or disreputable manner (see, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370, cert denied 416 US 905; cf., People v Gerbino, 132 AD2d 566).

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced because of the prosecutor’s remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. The prosecutor did not exceed the wide latitude afforded to counsel and her comments did not call upon the jury to draw conclusions that were not fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Pilgrim, 208 AD2d 868). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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 (Moskowitz, J.), rendered September 27, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the hearing court was biased because it allegedly curtailed his cross-examination of a police witness is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886). In any event, the claim is baseless. The questions that allegedly were curtailed had little or no relevance to the purpose of the hearing and the People’s objections thereto were properly sustained.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the admission into evidence of a post-arrest photograph showing the defendant lying on the floor holding his leg did not deprive him of a fair trial. The photograph was properly admitted since it had some probative value and it did not portray the defendant in a prejudicial or disreputable manner (see, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370, cert denied 416 US 905; cf., People v Gerbino, 132 AD2d 566).

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced because of the prosecutor’s remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. The prosecutor did not exceed the wide latitude afforded to counsel and her comments did not call upon the jury to draw conclusions that were not fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Pilgrim, 208 AD2d 868). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 524, 632 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-daise-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack