People v. McKinnie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKinnie

188 A.D.2d 274, 590 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13504

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 274 (People v. McKinnie) 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. McKinnie, 188 A.D.2d 274, 590 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 15, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

[275]*275The claimed errors in the court’s charge are unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, without merit. The court’s instruction on reasonable doubt was proper (see, People v Antommarchi, 176 AD2d 104, revd on other grounds 80 NY2d 247), and, indeed, defense counsel used similar language in summation. The other instruction challenged on appeal neither purported to, nor had the effect of, shifting the burden of proof, but merely stated defendant’s contentions.

The prosecutor’s comments in summation were an appropriate response to matters stressed by the defense (see, People v Wright, 172 AD2d 293, 294, lv denied 77 NY2d 1003). The claim that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the complainant’s credibility is unpreserved, and, in any event, this isolated statement did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Defendant’s contention that the sentence is excessive is without merit in view of his prior felony conviction and commission of this crime while still on parole. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 15, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

[275]*275The claimed errors in the court’s charge are unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, without merit. The court’s instruction on reasonable doubt was proper (see, People v Antommarchi, 176 AD2d 104, revd on other grounds 80 NY2d 247), and, indeed, defense counsel used similar language in summation. The other instruction challenged on appeal neither purported to, nor had the effect of, shifting the burden of proof, but merely stated defendant’s contentions.

The prosecutor’s comments in summation were an appropriate response to matters stressed by the defense (see, People v Wright, 172 AD2d 293, 294, lv denied 77 NY2d 1003). The claim that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the complainant’s credibility is unpreserved, and, in any event, this isolated statement did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Defendant’s contention that the sentence is excessive is without merit in view of his prior felony conviction and commission of this crime while still on parole. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 274, 590 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckinnie-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack