People v. McWhinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McWhinney

124 A.D.2d 830, 508 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62162

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 830 (People v. McWhinney) 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. McWhinney, 124 A.D.2d 830, 508 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was established by two of his inculpatory statements as well as the medical examiner’s testimony which tended to disprove the defense of justification. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, the prosecution’s case cannot be said to have been based on hopelessly contradictory testimony (cf. People v Reed, 40 NY2d 204).

Finally, while the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant and his remarks during summation were not exemplary, it cannot be said that the prosecutor’s conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

The evidence of the defendant’s guilt was established by two of his inculpatory statements as well as the medical examiner’s testimony which tended to disprove the defense of justification. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, the prosecution’s case cannot be said to have been based on hopelessly contradictory testimony (cf. People v Reed, 40 NY2d 204).

Finally, while the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant and his remarks during summation were not exemplary, it cannot be said that the prosecutor’s conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 830, 508 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcwhinney-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack