People v. Nash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nash

236 A.D.2d 845, 654 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1779

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 845 (People v. Nash) 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. Nash, 236 A.D.2d 845, 654 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly denied defendant’s motion because the integrity of the Grand Jury proceeding was not impaired and no possibility of prejudice to defendant was demonstrated (see, CPL 210.35 [5]; People v Wilkins, 68 NY2d 269, 277, n 7, mot to amend opn denied 68 NY2d 996). The grand juror disclosed his familiarity with defendant and the victim, was excused at the outset of the presentation, and did not vote on the indictment.

Although two comments by the prosecutor on summation were improper, the trial court took appropriate action to dilute the effect of one of the comments and, in light of the overwhelming strength of the People’s case, the same result would undoubtedly have been reached had the comments not been made (see, People v Curley, 159 AD2d 969, 970, lv denied 76 NY2d 733). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

The court properly denied defendant’s motion because the integrity of the Grand Jury proceeding was not impaired and no possibility of prejudice to defendant was demonstrated (see, CPL 210.35 [5]; People v Wilkins, 68 NY2d 269, 277, n 7, mot to amend opn denied 68 NY2d 996). The grand juror disclosed his familiarity with defendant and the victim, was excused at the outset of the presentation, and did not vote on the indictment.

Although two comments by the prosecutor on summation were improper, the trial court took appropriate action to dilute the effect of one of the comments and, in light of the overwhelming strength of the People’s case, the same result would undoubtedly have been reached had the comments not been made (see, People v Curley, 159 AD2d 969, 970, lv denied 76 NY2d 733). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 845, 654 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nash-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack