People v. Killebrew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Killebrew

297 A.D.2d 823, 748 N.Y.2d 56, 748 N.Y.S.2d 56, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8880

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 823 (People v. Killebrew) 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. Killebrew, 297 A.D.2d 823, 748 N.Y.2d 56, 748 N.Y.S.2d 56, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[824]*824The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor acted improperly during cross-examination and summation are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Daley, 292 AD2d 630; see generally People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, any errors were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Vitiello, 285 AD2d 480). Additionally, the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court gave erroneous instructions regarding reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, conveyed to the jury the correct rules to be applied in arriving at a verdict (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821; People v Bell, 294 AD2d 372, Iv denied 98 NY2d 694).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

[824]*824The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor acted improperly during cross-examination and summation are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Daley, 292 AD2d 630; see generally People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, any errors were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Vitiello, 285 AD2d 480). Additionally, the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court gave erroneous instructions regarding reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, conveyed to the jury the correct rules to be applied in arriving at a verdict (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821; People v Bell, 294 AD2d 372, Iv denied 98 NY2d 694).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 823, 748 N.Y.2d 56, 748 N.Y.S.2d 56, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-killebrew-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack