People v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Higgins

88 A.D.2d 921, 450 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17256

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 921 (People v. Higgins) 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. Higgins, 88 A.D.2d 921, 450 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ryan, J.), rendered May 22, 1980, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have evaluated the contentions of the appellant and are satisfied that the judgment should be affirmed. The proof of guilt is overwhelming. We consider it necessary, however, to indicate our strong condemnation of the prosecutor’s improper remarks during this trial. The prosecutor asked a number of objectionable questions clearly intended only to inflame the jury and commented sarcastically with respect to the defendant’s responses during cross-examination. He also interrupted defense summation with an improper remark. Although the prosecutor’s statements, considered as a whole and in light of the trial court’s curative instructions to the jury, fall short of reversible error, we find it necessary to remind the District Attorney that in seeking to prove a defendant’s guilt, a prosecutor has an obligation to insure that the defendant receives a fair trial and that he must restrain misguided impulses and excessive zeal during cross-examination and summation (see People v Toomer, 87 AD2d 875). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ryan, J.), rendered May 22, 1980, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have evaluated the contentions of the appellant and are satisfied that the judgment should be affirmed. The proof of guilt is overwhelming. We consider it necessary, however, to indicate our strong condemnation of the prosecutor’s improper remarks during this trial. The prosecutor asked a number of objectionable questions clearly intended only to inflame the jury and commented sarcastically with respect to the defendant’s responses during cross-examination. He also interrupted defense summation with an improper remark. Although the prosecutor’s statements, considered as a whole and in light of the trial court’s curative instructions to the jury, fall short of reversible error, we find it necessary to remind the District Attorney that in seeking to prove a defendant’s guilt, a prosecutor has an obligation to insure that the defendant receives a fair trial and that he must restrain misguided impulses and excessive zeal during cross-examination and summation (see People v Toomer, 87 AD2d 875). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 921, 450 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-higgins-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack