People v. Morinville

48 A.D.3d 485, 849 N.Y.S.2d 791

This text of 48 A.D.3d 485 (People v. Morinville) 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. Morinville, 48 A.D.3d 485, 849 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered October 12, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s allegedly improper questions during cross-examination and comments during summation constitute reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Siriani, 27 AD3d 670 [2006]). In any event, although some of the prosecutor’s remarks clearly were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see People v Joseph, 20 AD3d 435 [2005]; People v Wilt, 18 AD3d 971, 972-973 [2005]). Fisher, J.P., Lifson, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Wilt
18 A.D.3d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Joseph
20 A.D.3d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Siriani
27 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 A.D.3d 485, 849 N.Y.S.2d 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morinville-nyappdiv-2008.