People v. Ennis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ennis

18 A.D.3d 771, 795 N.Y.S.2d 912

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

DecidedMay 23, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 771 (People v. Ennis) 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. Ennis, 18 A.D.3d 771, 795 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), rendered June 18, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[772]*772Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments during summation constituted reversible error is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 [1982]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]). In any event, his contention is without merit. The prosecutor’s comments were responsive to defense counsel’s summation or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Meyers, 13 AD3d 395 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]; People v Yu Feng Shi, 12 AD3d 541 [2004]; People v Doe, 11 AD3d 711 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]). The comment that the defendant objected to was stricken from the record, after which the defendant neither requested further curative instructions nor moved for a mistrial. Thus, the defendant indicated that the court had sufficiently cured any error to his satisfaction (see People v Simms, 222 AD2d 622 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Spolzino, 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 (Partnow, J.), rendered June 18, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[772]*772Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments during summation constituted reversible error is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 [1982]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]). In any event, his contention is without merit. The prosecutor’s comments were responsive to defense counsel’s summation or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Meyers, 13 AD3d 395 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]; People v Yu Feng Shi, 12 AD3d 541 [2004]; People v Doe, 11 AD3d 711 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]). The comment that the defendant objected to was stricken from the record, after which the defendant neither requested further curative instructions nor moved for a mistrial. Thus, the defendant indicated that the court had sufficiently cured any error to his satisfaction (see People v Simms, 222 AD2d 622 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 771, 795 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ennis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack