People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Richards

116 A.D.2d 1008, 498 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51788

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 1008 (People v. Richards) 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. Richards, 116 A.D.2d 1008, 498 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this relatively brief, uncomplicated trial, the evidence of defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree was overwhelming. All of defendant’s claims of error, save one, are either without merit or unpreserved for review. As to the latter, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Creech, 60 NY2d 895). The record [1009]*1009demonstrates that defendant was not denied a fair trial (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), nor was he denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

While it was error for the court to permit Officer Du Val, over objection, to testify that he observed the victim make a pretrial identification of defendant (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; People v Thomas, 91 AD2d 857), the error was harmless when measured against the applicable standard for review of nonconstitutional error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). There was clear and strong testimony identifying the defendant (see, People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584), and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the police officer’s bolstering testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this relatively brief, uncomplicated trial, the evidence of defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree was overwhelming. All of defendant’s claims of error, save one, are either without merit or unpreserved for review. As to the latter, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Creech, 60 NY2d 895). The record [1009]*1009demonstrates that defendant was not denied a fair trial (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), nor was he denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

While it was error for the court to permit Officer Du Val, over objection, to testify that he observed the victim make a pretrial identification of defendant (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; People v Thomas, 91 AD2d 857), the error was harmless when measured against the applicable standard for review of nonconstitutional error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). There was clear and strong testimony identifying the defendant (see, People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584), and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the police officer’s bolstering testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 1008, 498 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richards-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack