People v. Dinh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dinh

70 A.D.3d 848, 892 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 848 (People v. Dinh) 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. Dinh, 70 A.D.3d 848, 892 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 13, 2008, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[849]*849Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct both while cross-examining him and during his summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855 [2007]; People v Booth, 265 AD2d 485, 486 [1999]). In any event, the complained-of questioning fell within the bounds of proper cross-examination (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 138, 139 [1997]; People v Caicedo, 173 AD2d 630, 631 [1991]). Likewise, most of the prosecutor’s summation constituted “fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation” (People v White, 5 AD3d 511, 511 [2004]), and any improper comments constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Roman, 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, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 13, 2008, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[849]*849Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct both while cross-examining him and during his summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855 [2007]; People v Booth, 265 AD2d 485, 486 [1999]). In any event, the complained-of questioning fell within the bounds of proper cross-examination (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 138, 139 [1997]; People v Caicedo, 173 AD2d 630, 631 [1991]). Likewise, most of the prosecutor’s summation constituted “fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation” (People v White, 5 AD3d 511, 511 [2004]), and any improper comments constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 848, 892 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dinh-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack