People v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martinez

27 A.D.3d 665, 810 N.Y.S.2d 686

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 665 (People v. Martinez) 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. Martinez, 27 A.D.3d 665, 810 N.Y.S.2d 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered April 16, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[666]*666The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are without merit. The challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), were responsive to arguments presented in the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Baker, 251 AD2d 592 [1998]), or were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Dillon, 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, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered April 16, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[666]*666The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are without merit. The challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), were responsive to arguments presented in the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Baker, 251 AD2d 592 [1998]), or were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 665, 810 N.Y.S.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack