People v. Frazier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frazier

159 A.D.2d 278, 552 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2636

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 1990·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered November 18, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10), and sentencing him as a predicate felon to a term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the interpreter was competent (People v Catron, 143 AD2d 468). There was no showing that any serious error in translation occurred during trial which would warrant a reversal (People v Rolston, 109 AD2d 854, 855).

Defendant raises several arguments with respect to the prosecutor’s summation. He first contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the People’s witnesses. However, the [279] statements made were in fair response to arguments raised by the defense in summation (People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151, lv denied 68 NY2d 810). The remaining contentions were not preserved as a matter of law and we, therefore, decline to reach them. Were we to consider them, we would nevertheless affirm, finding them to be without merit and that the summation was in fair response to defense arguments.

Defendant also fails to show that the court abused its discretion in sentencing (People v Junco, 43 AD2d 266, 268, affd 35 NY2d 419, cert denied 421 US 951). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered November 18, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10), and sentencing him as a predicate felon to a term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the interpreter was competent (People v Catron, 143 AD2d 468). There was no showing that any serious error in translation occurred during trial which would warrant a reversal (People v Rolston, 109 AD2d 854, 855).

Defendant raises several arguments with respect to the prosecutor’s summation. He first contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the People’s witnesses. However, the [279] statements made were in fair response to arguments raised by the defense in summation (People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151, lv denied 68 NY2d 810). The remaining contentions were not preserved as a matter of law and we, therefore, decline to reach them. Were we to consider them, we would nevertheless affirm, finding them to be without merit and that the summation was in fair response to defense arguments.

Defendant also fails to show that the court abused its discretion in sentencing (People v Junco, 43 AD2d 266, 268, affd 35 NY2d 419, cert denied 421 US 951). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Frazier, 159 A.D.2d 278, 552 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

159 A.D.2d 278 (People v. Frazier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related