People v. Mayea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayea

226 A.D.2d 280, 641 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539

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

DecidedApril 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 280 (People v. Mayea) 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. Mayea, 226 A.D.2d 280, 641 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, Jr., J.), rendered April 15, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4x/a to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly modified its Sandoval ruling by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant on his prior manslaughter conviction when, on direct examination, defendant gave misleading testimony about that conviction (see, Harris v New York, 401 US 222, 225-226; People v Santiago, 169 AD2d 557, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000). Defendant’s general objection to the prosecutor’s summation did not preserve his present claims with respect thereto (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review, we would find that the challenged comments were responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), did not make the prosecutor an unsworn witness, and properly urged consideration of relevant facts bearing on defendant’s credibility. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, Jr., J.), rendered April 15, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4x/a to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly modified its Sandoval ruling by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant on his prior manslaughter conviction when, on direct examination, defendant gave misleading testimony about that conviction (see, Harris v New York, 401 US 222, 225-226; People v Santiago, 169 AD2d 557, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000). Defendant’s general objection to the prosecutor’s summation did not preserve his present claims with respect thereto (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review, we would find that the challenged comments were responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), did not make the prosecutor an unsworn witness, and properly urged consideration of relevant facts bearing on defendant’s credibility. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 280, 641 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayea-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack