People v. Mucha

207 A.D.2d 990, 617 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10201

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s improper comments during summation. All but one of the alleged errors are unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Because the error that was preserved was "not so egregious or prejudicial as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, reversal is not warranted” (People v Dawkins, 203 AD2d 957, 958, citing People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, affd 65 NY2d 837; see, People v Widger, 126 AD2d 962). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Mucha, 207 A.D.2d 990, 617 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

207 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Mucha) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Roopchand
107 A.D.2d 35 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Widger
126 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Dawkins
203 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)