People v. Liverpool

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Liverpool

35 A.D.3d 506, 825 N.Y.S.2d 708

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 2006·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), rendered April 3, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

During summation the prosecutor improperly vouched for the prosecution’s main witness (see People v Collins, 12 AD3d 33 [2004]), argued that the defendant had a general propensity to commit crime (see People v Sanders, 303 AD2d 694 [2003]), suggested that the grand jury indictment constituted evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Jamal, 307 AD2d 267 [2003]; People v LaDolce, 196 AD2d 49 [1994]), and made additional unduly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks (see People v Robinson, 260 AD2d 508 [1999]). The cumulative effect of these errors was to deprive the defendant of a fair trial in this single-eyewitness case. Accordingly, a new trial is required.

[507]*507In light of our determination, we need not consider the defendant’s remaining contentions. Adams, J.E, Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), rendered April 3, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

During summation the prosecutor improperly vouched for the prosecution’s main witness (see People v Collins, 12 AD3d 33 [2004]), argued that the defendant had a general propensity to commit crime (see People v Sanders, 303 AD2d 694 [2003]), suggested that the grand jury indictment constituted evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Jamal, 307 AD2d 267 [2003]; People v LaDolce, 196 AD2d 49 [1994]), and made additional unduly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks (see People v Robinson, 260 AD2d 508 [1999]). The cumulative effect of these errors was to deprive the defendant of a fair trial in this single-eyewitness case. Accordingly, a new trial is required.

[507]*507In light of our determination, we need not consider the defendant’s remaining contentions. Adams, J.E, Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

People v. Liverpool, 35 A.D.3d 506, 825 N.Y.S.2d 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

35 A.D.3d 506 (People v. Liverpool) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related