People v. Mayrant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayrant

109 A.D.2d 850, 486 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47362

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 1985·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered September 8, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although the prosecutor’s summation contained inflammatory and unwarranted comments, we affirm the judgment of conviction because there was strong evidence of guilt, prompt curative instructions were given (People v Gibbs, 59 NY2d 930; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Cuevas, 99 AD2d 553; People v Tayeh, 96 AD2d 1045), a number of the improper comments were not objected to (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Dordal, 55 NY2d 954; People v Gonzalez, 102 AD2d 895; Richardson, Evidence [Prince 10th ed], § 538), and the record indicates that the jury carefully focused on the evidence during its deliberations (People v Galloway, supra; People v Gross, 51 AD2d 191). In short, defendant received a fair trial (People v Gonzalez, supra). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered September 8, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Although the prosecutor’s summation contained inflammatory and unwarranted comments, we affirm the judgment of conviction because there was strong evidence of guilt, prompt curative instructions were given (People v Gibbs, 59 NY2d 930; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Cuevas, 99 AD2d 553; People v Tayeh, 96 AD2d 1045), a number of the improper comments were not objected to (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Dordal, 55 NY2d 954; People v Gonzalez, 102 AD2d 895; Richardson, Evidence [Prince 10th ed], § 538), and the record indicates that the jury carefully focused on the evidence during its deliberations (People v Galloway, supra; People v Gross, 51 AD2d 191). In short, defendant received a fair trial (People v Gonzalez, supra). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

People v. Mayrant, 109 A.D.2d 850, 486 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

109 A.D.2d 850 (People v. Mayrant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related