People v. Nunes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nunes

118 A.D.2d 597, 499 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54458

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 3, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered January 19, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The ambiguous reference by a prosecution witness to an unrelated robbery for which the defendant was arrested does not require reversal where it was elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination and where no curative instruction was sought (see, People v Blackshear, 112 AD2d 1044; People v King, 91 AD2d 1073). The prosecutor’s question regarding the [598] same unrelated robbery on redirect examination merely reiterated the testimony previously elicited by defense counsel at his peril, and thus did not result in a denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, 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 (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered January 19, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The ambiguous reference by a prosecution witness to an unrelated robbery for which the defendant was arrested does not require reversal where it was elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination and where no curative instruction was sought (see, People v Blackshear, 112 AD2d 1044; People v King, 91 AD2d 1073). The prosecutor’s question regarding the [598] same unrelated robbery on redirect examination merely reiterated the testimony previously elicited by defense counsel at his peril, and thus did not result in a denial of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Nunes, 118 A.D.2d 597, 499 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

118 A.D.2d 597 (People v. Nunes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related