People v. Hermonstyne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hermonstyne

273 A.D.2d 408, 711 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7016

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

DecidedJune 19, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 408 (People v. Hermonstyne) 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. Hermonstyne, 273 A.D.2d 408, 711 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 23, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[409]*409Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced because of allegedly improper summation remarks by the prosecutor is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943; People v Elliot, 151 AD2d 498). In any event, the majority of the prosecutor’s statements were either in response to comments made by defense counsel in his summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), or they were a fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). To the extent that, any of the prosecutor’s comments constituted error, the Trial Judge acted promptly to remove any prejudicial effect caused thereby (see, People v Ashwal, supra). Moreover, any errors which may have occurred during the prosecutor’s summation were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Schmidt, 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 (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 23, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[409]*409Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced because of allegedly improper summation remarks by the prosecutor is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943; People v Elliot, 151 AD2d 498). In any event, the majority of the prosecutor’s statements were either in response to comments made by defense counsel in his summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), or they were a fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). To the extent that, any of the prosecutor’s comments constituted error, the Trial Judge acted promptly to remove any prejudicial effect caused thereby (see, People v Ashwal, supra). Moreover, any errors which may have occurred during the prosecutor’s summation were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 408, 711 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hermonstyne-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack