People v. Franco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Franco

268 A.D.2d 393, 702 N.Y.S.2d 55, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 805

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 393 (People v. Franco) 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. Franco, 268 A.D.2d 393, 702 N.Y.S.2d 55, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court improperly disparaged [394]*394defense counsel in the jury’s presence is unpreserved (People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find that the comments at issue could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 883), and that the possibility of prejudice was prevented by the court’s instructions.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting a videotape accurately portraying the crime scene, which included a depiction of the deceased’s body, since the probative value of that evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect (see, People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court improperly disparaged [394]*394defense counsel in the jury’s presence is unpreserved (People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find that the comments at issue could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 883), and that the possibility of prejudice was prevented by the court’s instructions.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting a videotape accurately portraying the crime scene, which included a depiction of the deceased’s body, since the probative value of that evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect (see, People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833). Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 393, 702 N.Y.S.2d 55, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-franco-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack