People v. Mucha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mucha

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

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 990, 617 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mucha-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack