People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Phillips

237 A.D.2d 386, 658 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2283

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 386 (People v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 237 A.D.2d 386, 658 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered May 13, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During summation, the prosecutor improperly asserted that a prosecution witness had identified the defendant during a lineup as having been one of the robbers (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282). However, the prosecutor’s mischaracterization was cured by the court’s prompt curative instruction to the jury, during which the court stated, "I think [the witness] said he wasn’t sure as to which person * * * he picked out”, and invited the jury to request a readback of the relevant testimony (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Alexandria, 126 AD2d 655). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either not [387]*387preserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, 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 (Brill, J.), rendered May 13, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During summation, the prosecutor improperly asserted that a prosecution witness had identified the defendant during a lineup as having been one of the robbers (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282). However, the prosecutor’s mischaracterization was cured by the court’s prompt curative instruction to the jury, during which the court stated, "I think [the witness] said he wasn’t sure as to which person * * * he picked out”, and invited the jury to request a readback of the relevant testimony (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Alexandria, 126 AD2d 655). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either not [387]*387preserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 386, 658 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-phillips-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack