People v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gordon

172 A.D.2d 771

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

DecidedApril 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 771 (People v. Gordon) 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. Gordon, 172 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Brien, J.), rendered November 30, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor made statements on summation which denigrated the credibility of the defense witness. Since the defendant did not object to any statements made by the prosecutor during his summation, the defendant’s claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, it was not error for the prosecutor to comment on the credibility of the defense witness since defense counsel had raised her credibility as an issue during his summation (see, People v Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 664). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and Harwood, 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, Queens County (O’Brien, J.), rendered November 30, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor made statements on summation which denigrated the credibility of the defense witness. Since the defendant did not object to any statements made by the prosecutor during his summation, the defendant’s claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, it was not error for the prosecutor to comment on the credibility of the defense witness since defense counsel had raised her credibility as an issue during his summation (see, People v Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 664). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gordon-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack