People v. Natt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Natt

155 A.D.2d 486

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 486 (People v. Natt) 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. Natt, 155 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered March 4, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During his summation the prosecutor urged the jury to acquit the defendant "in the name of the People of the State of New York” if it did not believe the prosecution witnesses. In context, it is apparent that this statement, while perhaps overly dramatic, was intended primarily to impress the jurors with the importance of their function. As such, it was proper (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401). The defendant’s remaining objections to the prosecutor’s summation are without merit (see, People v Colonna, 135 AD2d 724; People v Crawford, 130 AD2d 678; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151; see also, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered March 4, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During his summation the prosecutor urged the jury to acquit the defendant "in the name of the People of the State of New York” if it did not believe the prosecution witnesses. In context, it is apparent that this statement, while perhaps overly dramatic, was intended primarily to impress the jurors with the importance of their function. As such, it was proper (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401). The defendant’s remaining objections to the prosecutor’s summation are without merit (see, People v Colonna, 135 AD2d 724; People v Crawford, 130 AD2d 678; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151; see also, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-natt-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack