People v. Donaldson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donaldson

249 A.D.2d 109, 670 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066

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

DecidedApril 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 109 (People v. Donaldson) 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. Donaldson, 249 A.D.2d 109, 670 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered May 9, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

[110]*110The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant was armed with a gun and the jury was justified in rejecting his suggestion that because he had never used a weapon during the instances giving rise to his 24 prior shoplifting arrests, he had not displayed a gun on this occasion.

Defendant’s complaints about the prosecutor’s cross-examination and summation are unpreserved due to lack of specific objection (People v Terry, 231 AD2d 455, lv denied 89 NY2d 930), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the prosecutor’s questioning about defendant’s prior drug use and the role it played in his shoplifting endeavors was appropriate since defendant “ ‘brought these issues to the attention of the jury for purposes of promoting his defense’ ” (supra, at 455), and that the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation properly responded to defense counsel’s summation. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered May 9, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

[110]*110The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant was armed with a gun and the jury was justified in rejecting his suggestion that because he had never used a weapon during the instances giving rise to his 24 prior shoplifting arrests, he had not displayed a gun on this occasion.

Defendant’s complaints about the prosecutor’s cross-examination and summation are unpreserved due to lack of specific objection (People v Terry, 231 AD2d 455, lv denied 89 NY2d 930), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the prosecutor’s questioning about defendant’s prior drug use and the role it played in his shoplifting endeavors was appropriate since defendant “ ‘brought these issues to the attention of the jury for purposes of promoting his defense’ ” (supra, at 455), and that the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation properly responded to defense counsel’s summation. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 109, 670 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donaldson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack