People v. McKeever

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKeever

295 A.D.2d 541, 744 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6665

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 541 (People v. McKeever) 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. McKeever, 295 A.D.2d 541, 744 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 7, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the pros[542]*542ecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the jury could find, based on the evidence before it, that the defendant was not licensed to remain in the complainant’s apartment (see People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358; People v Powell, 58 NY2d 1009, 1010; People v Licata, 28 NY2d 113; see also People v Konikov, 160 AD2d 146). Moreover, while some of the prosecutor’s remarks during summation may have been improper, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Sanders, 280 AD2d 560). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Townes, 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 (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 7, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the pros[542]*542ecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the jury could find, based on the evidence before it, that the defendant was not licensed to remain in the complainant’s apartment (see People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358; People v Powell, 58 NY2d 1009, 1010; People v Licata, 28 NY2d 113; see also People v Konikov, 160 AD2d 146). Moreover, while some of the prosecutor’s remarks during summation may have been improper, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Sanders, 280 AD2d 560). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 541, 744 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckeever-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack