People v. Meredith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meredith

128 A.D.2d 813, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44499

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 813 (People v. Meredith) 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. Meredith, 128 A.D.2d 813, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.), rendered December 10, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While we agree that certain of the prosecutor’s comments during his summation which seemed intended to arouse sympathy for the complaining witness were improper, the remarks do not warrant reversal because they did not deny the defendant a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, affd 65 NY2d 837). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, 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 (Fuchs, J.), rendered December 10, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While we agree that certain of the prosecutor’s comments during his summation which seemed intended to arouse sympathy for the complaining witness were improper, the remarks do not warrant reversal because they did not deny the defendant a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, affd 65 NY2d 837). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 813, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meredith-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack