People v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McManus

2017 NY Slip Op 3533, 149 A.D.3d 982, 50 N.Y.S.3d 307

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

DecidedApril 19, 2017

Docket2015-08789

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3533 (People v. McManus) 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. McManus, 2017 NY Slip Op 3533, 149 A.D.3d 982, 50 N.Y.S.3d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Riviezzo, J.), rendered June 20, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt *983 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886 [1991]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819 [1982]). In any event, to the extent that some remarks may have been improper, they “were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial” (People v Ward, 106 AD3d 842, 843 [2013]; see People v Thompson, 125 AD3d 899, 900 [2015]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698, 699 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 (Riviezzo, J.), rendered June 20, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt *983 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886 [1991]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819 [1982]). In any event, to the extent that some remarks may have been improper, they “were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial” (People v Ward, 106 AD3d 842, 843 [2013]; see People v Thompson, 125 AD3d 899, 900 [2015]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698, 699 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3533, 149 A.D.3d 982, 50 N.Y.S.3d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcmanus-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack