People v. Hampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hampton

211 A.D.2d 464, 621 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 226

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Hampton) 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. Hampton, 211 A.D.2d 464, 621 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered May 26, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The denial by defendant’s alibi witness of any knowledge of or involvement in narcotics trafficking in her apartment did not "preclude further inquiry by the prosecutor in a legitimate effort to cause the [witness] to change [her] testimony” since the prosecutor had a good faith basis for the questioning (People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244).

Defendant’s complaints about the prosecutor’s summation are largely unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (People v Montez, 203 AD2d 216, lv denied 83 NY2d 969). If we were to review them, we would find them to be without merit. The prosecutor’s comment that the victim "was able to pick out” defendant’s accomplice five times, was simply a misstatement of her earlier reference to the victim’s observation of the defendant and his accomplice on five separate occasions (People v Lehrman, 200 AD2d 540, lv denied 83 NY2d 855).

As to the preserved claims, defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s suggestion that his alibi witness knew that 450 vials of cocaine had been recovered from her apartment, in light of the court’s admonishment of the prosecutor, and its [465]*465charge to the jury that counsel’s argument was not evidence and that it was the jury’s recollection that controlled (People v Good, 201 AD2d 254). Finally, we note that any error in the prosecutor’s summation and cross-examination was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Reddick, 65 NY2d 835). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered May 26, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The denial by defendant’s alibi witness of any knowledge of or involvement in narcotics trafficking in her apartment did not "preclude further inquiry by the prosecutor in a legitimate effort to cause the [witness] to change [her] testimony” since the prosecutor had a good faith basis for the questioning (People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244).

Defendant’s complaints about the prosecutor’s summation are largely unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (People v Montez, 203 AD2d 216, lv denied 83 NY2d 969). If we were to review them, we would find them to be without merit. The prosecutor’s comment that the victim "was able to pick out” defendant’s accomplice five times, was simply a misstatement of her earlier reference to the victim’s observation of the defendant and his accomplice on five separate occasions (People v Lehrman, 200 AD2d 540, lv denied 83 NY2d 855).

As to the preserved claims, defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor’s suggestion that his alibi witness knew that 450 vials of cocaine had been recovered from her apartment, in light of the court’s admonishment of the prosecutor, and its [465]*465charge to the jury that counsel’s argument was not evidence and that it was the jury’s recollection that controlled (People v Good, 201 AD2d 254). Finally, we note that any error in the prosecutor’s summation and cross-examination was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Reddick, 65 NY2d 835). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 464, 621 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hampton-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack