People v. Moran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moran

154 A.D.2d 322, 546 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13592

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 1989·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Barrett, J.), rendered June 1, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a jury’s verdict, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]), robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]), unanimously affirmed.

The only claim raised by defendant relates to purported vouching by the prosecutor during summation, when he said that the two complainants had "no motive to lie” and had testified to "exactly what had happened out there.” Counsel never objected or otherwise drew the court’s attention to these remarks, and has waived his claim for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025 [1982]).

There is no reason to review in the interest of justice. Although it would have been better to preface the comments with qualifying language, the comments appropriately responded to defense counsel’s comments, and the error is de minimis. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Barrett, J.), rendered June 1, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a jury’s verdict, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]), robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]), unanimously affirmed.

The only claim raised by defendant relates to purported vouching by the prosecutor during summation, when he said that the two complainants had "no motive to lie” and had testified to "exactly what had happened out there.” Counsel never objected or otherwise drew the court’s attention to these remarks, and has waived his claim for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1025 [1982]).

There is no reason to review in the interest of justice. Although it would have been better to preface the comments with qualifying language, the comments appropriately responded to defense counsel’s comments, and the error is de minimis. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

People v. Moran, 154 A.D.2d 322, 546 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

154 A.D.2d 322 (People v. Moran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related