People v. Powell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Powell

64 A.D.2d 676, 407 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 676 (People v. Powell) 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. Powell, 64 A.D.2d 676, 407 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 31, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and [677]*677imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The proof against the defendant was not overwhelming, a sharp issue of identification was presented, and the defendant adduced alibi testimony, all of which emphasized the importance of a fair trial. We find that the Assistant District Attorney, in her summation, exceeded the bounds of due process in her reference to defense counsel and the alibi witnesses (see People v Sarmiento, 40 AD2d 562; People v Coles, 47 AD2d 905; People v Burnside, 52 AD2d 626; People v Tatum, 54 AD2d 950). Since the issue of guilt was close, the references were prejudicial and require a new trial. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 31, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and [677]*677imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The proof against the defendant was not overwhelming, a sharp issue of identification was presented, and the defendant adduced alibi testimony, all of which emphasized the importance of a fair trial. We find that the Assistant District Attorney, in her summation, exceeded the bounds of due process in her reference to defense counsel and the alibi witnesses (see People v Sarmiento, 40 AD2d 562; People v Coles, 47 AD2d 905; People v Burnside, 52 AD2d 626; People v Tatum, 54 AD2d 950). Since the issue of guilt was close, the references were prejudicial and require a new trial. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 676, 407 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-powell-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack