People v. Norwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Norwood

299 A.D.2d 810, 750 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered July 27, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 25 years to life. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement. Further, the evidence against defendant was not wholly circumstantial, and thus Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636; People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881; People v Bretagna, 298 NY 323, 325-326, cert denied 336 US 919, reh denied 336 US 922). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered July 27, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 25 years to life. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement. Further, the evidence against defendant was not wholly circumstantial, and thus Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636; People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880-881; People v Bretagna, 298 NY 323, 325-326, cert denied 336 US 919, reh denied 336 US 922). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Norwood, 299 A.D.2d 810, 750 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

299 A.D.2d 810 (People v. Norwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related