People v. Marston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marston

71 A.D.3d 789, 895 N.Y.S.2d 751

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 789 (People v. Marston) 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. Marston, 71 A.D.3d 789, 895 N.Y.S.2d 751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 15, 2003, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s alleged denigration of defense counsel is without merit. Although the trial court criticized, in front of the jury, defense counsel’s conduct, and made some comments that were less than favorable, the court’s actions were provoked by defense counsel’s misconduct (see People v Gonzalez, 38 NY2d 208, 210-211 [1975]; People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024, 1024-1025 [2006]; People v Man Xing Guo, 271 AD2d 700 [2000]). More[790]*790over, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court’s instructions to the jury that the court had no opinion about the evidence, and that nothing it said during the trial was intended to convey such an impression (see People v Martin, 33 AD3d at 1025; People v Man Xing Guo, 271 AD2d at 700; People v Riddick, 251 AD2d 517, 518-519 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Sgroi, 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 (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 15, 2003, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s alleged denigration of defense counsel is without merit. Although the trial court criticized, in front of the jury, defense counsel’s conduct, and made some comments that were less than favorable, the court’s actions were provoked by defense counsel’s misconduct (see People v Gonzalez, 38 NY2d 208, 210-211 [1975]; People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024, 1024-1025 [2006]; People v Man Xing Guo, 271 AD2d 700 [2000]). More[790]*790over, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court’s instructions to the jury that the court had no opinion about the evidence, and that nothing it said during the trial was intended to convey such an impression (see People v Martin, 33 AD3d at 1025; People v Man Xing Guo, 271 AD2d at 700; People v Riddick, 251 AD2d 517, 518-519 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 789, 895 N.Y.S.2d 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marston-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack