People v. Hanover

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hanover

10 A.D.2d 871, 199 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10715

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

DecidedApril 11, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 871 (People v. Hanover) 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. Hanover, 10 A.D.2d 871, 199 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting appellant, after trial, of rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree and robbery in the first degree. Judgment unanimously affirmed. Although the prosecutor indulged in improper comment in his summation, nevertheless on the entire record it is our opinion that appellant’s substantial rights were not affected, and that justice does not require a new trial. The evidence conclusively established appellant’s guilt, and we do not believe that the verdict of the jury would have been different if the improper statements had not been made (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting appellant, after trial, of rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree and robbery in the first degree. Judgment unanimously affirmed. Although the prosecutor indulged in improper comment in his summation, nevertheless on the entire record it is our opinion that appellant’s substantial rights were not affected, and that justice does not require a new trial. The evidence conclusively established appellant’s guilt, and we do not believe that the verdict of the jury would have been different if the improper statements had not been made (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 871, 199 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hanover-nyappdiv-1960.