People v. Lineberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lineberger

251 A.D.2d 19, 672 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6394

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

DecidedJune 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 19 (People v. Lineberger) 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. Lineberger, 251 A.D.2d 19, 672 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 5, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that testimony by police witnesses constituted improper bolstering of the eyewitness’s testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged testimony did not constitute inferential bolstering (see, People v Parris, 247 AD2d 221), and that, in any event, its admission was harmless in view of the strength of the identification testimony {People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, 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.), rendered May 5, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that testimony by police witnesses constituted improper bolstering of the eyewitness’s testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged testimony did not constitute inferential bolstering (see, People v Parris, 247 AD2d 221), and that, in any event, its admission was harmless in view of the strength of the identification testimony {People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 19, 672 N.Y.S.2d 710, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lineberger-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack