People v. Graham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Graham

292 A.D.2d 824, 739 N.Y.S.2d 307

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 824 (People v. Graham) 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. Graham, 292 A.D.2d 824, 739 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Jefferson County Court (Clary, J.), entered April 21, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation. By failing to object to the alleged instances of misconduct, defendant has failed to preserve his contention for our review {see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in granting the prosecutor’s motion in limine seeking to limit cross-examination of the victim concerning certain pending charges. Defendant, however, stated in response to the prosecutor’s motion that he did not intend to cross-examine the victim concerning the facts underlying her arrest, and that part of the court’s order precluding defendant from cross-examining the victim with respect to the fact that she was arrested was proper (see, People v Miller, 91 NY2d 372, 380). In any event, any error is harmless (see, People v Mastin, 261 AD2d 892, 894, lv denied 93 NY2d 1022). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Jefferson County Court (Clary, J.), entered April 21, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, rape in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation. By failing to object to the alleged instances of misconduct, defendant has failed to preserve his contention for our review {see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in granting the prosecutor’s motion in limine seeking to limit cross-examination of the victim concerning certain pending charges. Defendant, however, stated in response to the prosecutor’s motion that he did not intend to cross-examine the victim concerning the facts underlying her arrest, and that part of the court’s order precluding defendant from cross-examining the victim with respect to the fact that she was arrested was proper (see, People v Miller, 91 NY2d 372, 380). In any event, any error is harmless (see, People v Mastin, 261 AD2d 892, 894, lv denied 93 NY2d 1022). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 824, 739 N.Y.S.2d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graham-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack