People v. Hicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hicks

259 A.D.2d 264, 684 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2304

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 264 (People v. Hicks) 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. Hicks, 259 A.D.2d 264, 684 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J., at jury trial; Micki Scherer, J., at sentence), convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were generally responsive to the defense summation and permissible comment on the evidence (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). To the extent that any of the comments might be viewed as improper, we find that the court’s curative actions were sufficient to prevent any possibility of prejudice (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J., at jury trial; Micki Scherer, J., at sentence), convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were generally responsive to the defense summation and permissible comment on the evidence (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). To the extent that any of the comments might be viewed as improper, we find that the court’s curative actions were sufficient to prevent any possibility of prejudice (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 264, 684 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hicks-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack