People v. Dow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dow

288 A.D.2d 486, 735 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11429

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 486 (People v. Dow) 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. Dow, 288 A.D.2d 486, 735 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 1, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People improperly bolstered identification testimony by introducing evidence that the eyewitnesses had also identified the defendant’s accomplice, who was not on trial, is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, any error in admitting this evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, 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, Kangs County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 1, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People improperly bolstered identification testimony by introducing evidence that the eyewitnesses had also identified the defendant’s accomplice, who was not on trial, is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, any error in admitting this evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 486, 735 N.Y.S.2d 392, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dow-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack