People v. Moses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moses

305 A.D.2d 184, 757 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5253

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

DecidedMay 8, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 184 (People v. Moses) 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. Moses, 305 A.D.2d 184, 757 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered March 29, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, by making generalized objections or objections on different grounds from those raised on appeal, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his current challenges to the prosecutor’s allegedly prejudicial comments and questions during his cross-examination of defendant and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that while the prosecutor did engage in certain instances of improper and unprofessional conduct, such misconduct was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]), as well as the court’s prompt curative actions that minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered March 29, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, by making generalized objections or objections on different grounds from those raised on appeal, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his current challenges to the prosecutor’s allegedly prejudicial comments and questions during his cross-examination of defendant and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that while the prosecutor did engage in certain instances of improper and unprofessional conduct, such misconduct was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]), as well as the court’s prompt curative actions that minimized any prejudicial effect (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 184, 757 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moses-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack