People v. Lassiter
This text of 74 A.D.3d 1094 (People v. Lassiter) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), rendered September 27, 2007, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the testimony of a police detective improperly bolstered the prior identification of the defendant by certain eyewitnesses, in violation of the principles enunciated in People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471 [1953]), is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663 [1982]; see also People v Melendez, 51 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2008]). In any event, the contention is without merit. The detective’s testimony did not have a bolstering effect because he did not refer to the witnesses’s identification of the defendant (see People v Moore, 159 AD2d 521, 522 [1990]; People v Middleton, 128 AD2d 554 [1987]).
[1095]*1095The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176-178 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Lott, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 A.D.3d 1094, 902 N.Y.S.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lassiter-nyappdiv-2010.