People v. Eborn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eborn

125 A.D.2d 327, 509 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62592

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 327 (People v. Eborn) 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. Eborn, 125 A.D.2d 327, 509 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered June 17, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor was permitted to bolster the complainant’s testimony relating to his identification of the defendant to be without merit. During the questioning of a police officer by the prosecutor, the officer voluntarily stated, "After [the complainant] identified him [the defendant]”. The trial court immediately interrupted the witness’s testimony, and gave curative instructions to the jury to disregard the statement by the witness. Thus, the testimony by the officer did not constitute improper bolstering because it was not elicited by the prosecution and was stricken by the court (cf. People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471).

The defendant’s further contentions with respect to the prosecutor’s summation and the charge to the jury are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to address them in the interest of justice in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered June 17, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor was permitted to bolster the complainant’s testimony relating to his identification of the defendant to be without merit. During the questioning of a police officer by the prosecutor, the officer voluntarily stated, "After [the complainant] identified him [the defendant]”. The trial court immediately interrupted the witness’s testimony, and gave curative instructions to the jury to disregard the statement by the witness. Thus, the testimony by the officer did not constitute improper bolstering because it was not elicited by the prosecution and was stricken by the court (cf. People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471).

The defendant’s further contentions with respect to the prosecutor’s summation and the charge to the jury are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to address them in the interest of justice in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 327, 509 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eborn-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack