People v. Dolberry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dolberry

11 A.D.3d 708, 782 N.Y.S.2d 925, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 708 (People v. Dolberry) 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. Dolberry, 11 A.D.3d 708, 782 N.Y.S.2d 925, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered January 2, 2002, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that comments made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation deprived him of a fair trial. The defendant’s contention is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. To the extent that any of the prosecutor’s comments made during his opening statement or summation were improper, they were not so prejudicial as to warrant a reversal, as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 872 [1995]). S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Skelos, 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 (D’Emic, J.), rendered January 2, 2002, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that comments made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation deprived him of a fair trial. The defendant’s contention is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. To the extent that any of the prosecutor’s comments made during his opening statement or summation were improper, they were not so prejudicial as to warrant a reversal, as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 872 [1995]). S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 708, 782 N.Y.S.2d 925, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dolberry-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack