People v. Norris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Norris

178 A.D.2d 351, 578 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16634

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 351 (People v. Norris) 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. Norris, 178 A.D.2d 351, 578 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph A. Cerbone, J.), rendered August 9, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms [352]*352of imprisonment of from 3 to 9 years and 1 year, respectively unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that she was deprived of due process by comments made by the prosecutor in summation. We find that although the arguments of which defendant complains were inappropriate, the court promptly sustained counsel’s objections and gave adequate curative instructions. Under these circumstances, there was no prejudice to defendant. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph A. Cerbone, J.), rendered August 9, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms [352]*352of imprisonment of from 3 to 9 years and 1 year, respectively unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that she was deprived of due process by comments made by the prosecutor in summation. We find that although the arguments of which defendant complains were inappropriate, the court promptly sustained counsel’s objections and gave adequate curative instructions. Under these circumstances, there was no prejudice to defendant. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 351, 578 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-norris-nyappdiv-1991.