People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dukes

117 A.D.2d 970, 499 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53208

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 970 (People v. Dukes) 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. Dukes, 117 A.D.2d 970, 499 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s claim of error arising from comments made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and on this record it cannot be said that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (CPL 470.15 [6] [971]*971[a]). To the extent that the prosecutor’s comments exceeded the scope of permissible response to defense counsel’s summation, defendant was not thereby prejudiced. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and the trial court’s appropriate instructions to the jury on credibility, there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the erroneous remarks of the prosecutor (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s claim of error arising from comments made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and on this record it cannot be said that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (CPL 470.15 [6] [971]*971[a]). To the extent that the prosecutor’s comments exceeded the scope of permissible response to defense counsel’s summation, defendant was not thereby prejudiced. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and the trial court’s appropriate instructions to the jury on credibility, there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the erroneous remarks of the prosecutor (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 970, 499 N.Y.S.2d 623, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dukes-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack