People v. Planca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Planca

225 A.D.2d 470, 639 N.Y.2d 922, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3199

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 470 (People v. Planca) 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. Planca, 225 A.D.2d 470, 639 N.Y.2d 922, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court’s questioning of a venireperson challenged by defendant for cause elicited responses satisfying the requirement that the case be determined solely on the evidence (People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 78).

The prosecutor’s summation comments constituted appropriate response to the defense summation (People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912), and fair comment on the evidence, presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Further, in light of the trial court’s jury charges [471]*471regarding, inter alia, the burden of proof, there is no danger that the rhetorical device utilized by the prosecutor in summation served to shift such burden. We also note there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

The trial court’s questioning of a venireperson challenged by defendant for cause elicited responses satisfying the requirement that the case be determined solely on the evidence (People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 78).

The prosecutor’s summation comments constituted appropriate response to the defense summation (People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, cert denied 362 US 912), and fair comment on the evidence, presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Further, in light of the trial court’s jury charges [471]*471regarding, inter alia, the burden of proof, there is no danger that the rhetorical device utilized by the prosecutor in summation served to shift such burden. We also note there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 470, 639 N.Y.2d 922, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-planca-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack