People v. Pittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pittman

158 A.D.2d 345, 551 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1368

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 345 (People v. Pittman) 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. Pittman, 158 A.D.2d 345, 551 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The prosecutor’s comments in summation were either clarified by curative instructions, a fair response to defendant’s summation, or within the "broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399). In any event, any error that may have been committed was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Nor was the sentence unduly harsh. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

The prosecutor’s comments in summation were either clarified by curative instructions, a fair response to defendant’s summation, or within the "broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399). In any event, any error that may have been committed was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Nor was the sentence unduly harsh. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 345, 551 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pittman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack