People v. Pridgen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pridgen

171 A.D.2d 763

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 763 (People v. Pridgen) 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. Pridgen, 171 A.D.2d 763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered March 6, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[764]*764Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The remarks were based on reasonable inferences from the evidence and constituted fair comment (see, People v Pugliese, 131 AD2d 789, 790). Additionally, the prosecutor properly attempted to rehabilitate his principal witness whose credibility had been attacked during defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Gibbs, 166 AD2d 454).

The defendant’s allegation that the trial court erred by denying his request for a charge on prior inconsistent statements is without merit. The general credibility instruction, rendered by the court, was sufficient (see, People v Butts, 139 AD2d 660; People v Dellarocco, 115 AD2d 904) and the jury was adequately informed of the correct rules to apply in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Butts, supra; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, 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, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered March 6, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[764]*764Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The remarks were based on reasonable inferences from the evidence and constituted fair comment (see, People v Pugliese, 131 AD2d 789, 790). Additionally, the prosecutor properly attempted to rehabilitate his principal witness whose credibility had been attacked during defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Gibbs, 166 AD2d 454).

The defendant’s allegation that the trial court erred by denying his request for a charge on prior inconsistent statements is without merit. The general credibility instruction, rendered by the court, was sufficient (see, People v Butts, 139 AD2d 660; People v Dellarocco, 115 AD2d 904) and the jury was adequately informed of the correct rules to apply in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Butts, supra; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 832).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pridgen-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack