People v. David C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. David C.

122 A.D.2d 277, 505 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59618

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

DecidedJuly 28, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 277 (People v. David C.) 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. David C., 122 A.D.2d 277, 505 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), rendered June 29, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although the prosecutor elicited testimony from the arresting officer that improperly bolstered the complainant’s testimony (see, People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819; People v Trowbridge, [278]*278305 NY 471), this error was not preserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Lebron, 95 AD2d 864) and, in any event, in view of the strength of the identification testimony, the error must be deemed harmless because there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the bolstering testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584).

The defendant’s contentions with respect to the propriety of the prosecutor’s summation have similarly not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the instant summation, when reviewed in deciding a codefendant’s appeal (People v Algerio, 110 AD2d 706), was found not to constitute reversible error. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, 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, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), rendered June 29, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although the prosecutor elicited testimony from the arresting officer that improperly bolstered the complainant’s testimony (see, People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819; People v Trowbridge, [278]*278305 NY 471), this error was not preserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Lebron, 95 AD2d 864) and, in any event, in view of the strength of the identification testimony, the error must be deemed harmless because there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the bolstering testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969; People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584).

The defendant’s contentions with respect to the propriety of the prosecutor’s summation have similarly not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the instant summation, when reviewed in deciding a codefendant’s appeal (People v Algerio, 110 AD2d 706), was found not to constitute reversible error. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 277, 505 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-david-c-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack