People v. Efferson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Efferson

300 A.D.2d 674, 751 N.Y.S.2d 888

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 674 (People v. Efferson) 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. Efferson, 300 A.D.2d 674, 751 N.Y.S.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered August 1, 2000, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant’s objections were preserved for appellate review, the prosecutor’s challenged remarks for the most part either constituted fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Phillips, 285 AD2d 477, 478), or were cured by the court sustaining the defendant’s objection and providing instruction to the jury (see People v Burrell, 178 AD2d 422). To the extent that any inappropriate remarks remained uncured, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Stith, 291 AD2d 576; People v Ryant, 278 AD2d 345). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, 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 (Reichbach, J.), rendered August 1, 2000, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant’s objections were preserved for appellate review, the prosecutor’s challenged remarks for the most part either constituted fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Phillips, 285 AD2d 477, 478), or were cured by the court sustaining the defendant’s objection and providing instruction to the jury (see People v Burrell, 178 AD2d 422). To the extent that any inappropriate remarks remained uncured, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Stith, 291 AD2d 576; People v Ryant, 278 AD2d 345). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 674, 751 N.Y.S.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-efferson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack