People v. Melendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Melendez

211 A.D.2d 436, 621 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 175

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 436 (People v. Melendez) 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. Melendez, 211 A.D.2d 436, 621 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered December 12, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and IV2 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and remarks on summation did not deprive him of a fair trial. The cumulative effect of the prosecutorial comments did not portray defendant as having a propensity for homicidal violence. While the prosecutor’s summation remark that this case involved a "murder * * * by this twice convicted felon” was improper, the trial court promptly issued curative instructions which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104). We have also reviewed defendant’s pro se supplemental brief wherein he raises a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and find said argument to be without merit. Concur—Asch, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered December 12, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and IV2 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and remarks on summation did not deprive him of a fair trial. The cumulative effect of the prosecutorial comments did not portray defendant as having a propensity for homicidal violence. While the prosecutor’s summation remark that this case involved a "murder * * * by this twice convicted felon” was improper, the trial court promptly issued curative instructions which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104). We have also reviewed defendant’s pro se supplemental brief wherein he raises a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and find said argument to be without merit. Concur—Asch, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 436, 621 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melendez-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack