People v. Martino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martino

161 A.D.2d 102, 554 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4840

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

DecidedMay 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 102 (People v. Martino) 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. Martino, 161 A.D.2d 102, 554 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered on December 22, 1987, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene of an accident without reporting and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of lVs to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant contends that certain comments by the prosecutor during summation violated his right to due process. Defendant raised general objection to some of the comments and no objection to others. Thus, he has failed to preserve his present claim for review. Were we to reach defendant’s claim, in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding [103]*103it to be without merit (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401). In this trial of some length, the prosecutor’s isolated remarks, even if error, were harmless error.

In a supplemental brief the defendant further argues that his absence, prior to jury selection, when counsel moved to amend the indictment, entitles him to a new trial. Assuming that his absence resulted from a misunderstanding, there has been no showing of prejudice. In People v Mullen (44 NY2d 1, 5 [1978]), the court stated that "[c]ommon sense dictates that substantial performance of [a defendant’s right to be present] is sufficient.” Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered on December 22, 1987, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene of an accident without reporting and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of lVs to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant contends that certain comments by the prosecutor during summation violated his right to due process. Defendant raised general objection to some of the comments and no objection to others. Thus, he has failed to preserve his present claim for review. Were we to reach defendant’s claim, in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding [103]*103it to be without merit (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401). In this trial of some length, the prosecutor’s isolated remarks, even if error, were harmless error.

In a supplemental brief the defendant further argues that his absence, prior to jury selection, when counsel moved to amend the indictment, entitles him to a new trial. Assuming that his absence resulted from a misunderstanding, there has been no showing of prejudice. In People v Mullen (44 NY2d 1, 5 [1978]), the court stated that "[c]ommon sense dictates that substantial performance of [a defendant’s right to be present] is sufficient.” Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 102, 554 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martino-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack