People v. McNill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McNill

294 A.D.2d 307, 742 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5577

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

DecidedMay 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 307 (People v. McNill) 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. McNill, 294 A.D.2d 307, 742 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Su[308]*308preme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered July 10, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s opportunity to tailor his testimony was permissible (People v Swift, 272 AD2d 126, lv denied 95 NY2d 871). We would further find that the other challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and that there was nothing so egregious as to deny defendant a fair trial (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Su[308]*308preme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered July 10, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s opportunity to tailor his testimony was permissible (People v Swift, 272 AD2d 126, lv denied 95 NY2d 871). We would further find that the other challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and that there was nothing so egregious as to deny defendant a fair trial (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 307, 742 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcnill-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack