People v. Rico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rico

180 A.D.2d 766

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 766 (People v. Rico) 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. Rico, 180 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), rendered November 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[767]*767Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Crawford, 159 AD2d 583). In any event, under the circumstances, the prosecutor’s remarks were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation in which he assailed the veracity and credibility of the People’s witnesses (see, People v Wirts, 178 AD2d 165; People v Rivera, 171 AD2d 583; People v Morgan, 136 AD2d 749; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151). Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, 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 (Joy, J.), rendered November 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[767]*767Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Crawford, 159 AD2d 583). In any event, under the circumstances, the prosecutor’s remarks were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation in which he assailed the veracity and credibility of the People’s witnesses (see, People v Wirts, 178 AD2d 165; People v Rivera, 171 AD2d 583; People v Morgan, 136 AD2d 749; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151). Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rico-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack