People v. Meyers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meyers

11 A.D.3d 221, 784 N.Y.S.2d 477, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11509

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 221 (People v. Meyers) 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. Meyers, 11 A.D.3d 221, 784 N.Y.S.2d 477, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[222]*222Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered September 11, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based upon the prosecutor’s summation. Although the prosecutor’s suggestions to the jury to not allow defendant to “get away” with the crime, and to convict him in the “interest of justice” were inappropriately phrased, they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, and there was no pattern of egregious remarks warranting reversal (see People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[222]*222Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered September 11, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based upon the prosecutor’s summation. Although the prosecutor’s suggestions to the jury to not allow defendant to “get away” with the crime, and to convict him in the “interest of justice” were inappropriately phrased, they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, and there was no pattern of egregious remarks warranting reversal (see People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Tom, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 221, 784 N.Y.S.2d 477, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meyers-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack