People v. Haddock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haddock

221 A.D.2d 562, 634 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11933

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 562 (People v. Haddock) 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. Haddock, 221 A.D.2d 562, 634 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered November 18, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. -

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and his codefendant (see, People v Martin, 221 AD2d 568 [decided herewith]) were tried before dual juries. On appeal, the defendant concedes that the trial court followed many of the guidelines for such trials set forth in People v Ricardo B. (73 NY2d 228), but contends that the court erred in failing to issue certain instructions regarding the roles of dual juries. The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to request such instructions (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.

Similarly, we decline to consider those claims by the defendant regarding the prosecutor’s summation which are unpreserved for appellate review. To the extent that the defendant’s claims are preserved for appellate review, we find them to be without merit. The prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence or was a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, affd 85 NY2d 872). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, 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 (Hall, J.), rendered November 18, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. -

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and his codefendant (see, People v Martin, 221 AD2d 568 [decided herewith]) were tried before dual juries. On appeal, the defendant concedes that the trial court followed many of the guidelines for such trials set forth in People v Ricardo B. (73 NY2d 228), but contends that the court erred in failing to issue certain instructions regarding the roles of dual juries. The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to request such instructions (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.

Similarly, we decline to consider those claims by the defendant regarding the prosecutor’s summation which are unpreserved for appellate review. To the extent that the defendant’s claims are preserved for appellate review, we find them to be without merit. The prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence or was a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, affd 85 NY2d 872). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 562, 634 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haddock-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack