People v. Pittman

158 A.D.2d 345, 551 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1368
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

158 A.D.2d 345 (People v. Pittman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Olsowske
247 A.D.2d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Khan
174 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)