People v. Purnell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Purnell

135 A.D.2d 842, 523 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52778

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 842 (People v. Purnell) 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. Purnell, 135 A.D.2d 842, 523 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered July 18, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial in view of certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation and the trial court’s failure to submit an identification charge to the jury. These claims, however, are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object at trial either to the subject remarks or to the charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Furthermore, the claims do not state a basis for reversal in the interest of justice. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, 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, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered July 18, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial in view of certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation and the trial court’s failure to submit an identification charge to the jury. These claims, however, are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object at trial either to the subject remarks or to the charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Furthermore, the claims do not state a basis for reversal in the interest of justice. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 842, 523 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-purnell-nyappdiv-1987.