People v. Romano

301 A.D.2d 666, 753 N.Y.S.2d 873
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 666 (People v. Romano) 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. Romano, 301 A.D.2d 666, 753 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 19, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[667]*667Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While the defendant is entitled by statute to have his counsel deliver a summation at the close of all the evidence (see CPL 260.30 [8]; Herring v New York, 422 US 853), the Supreme Court may limit summation to matters of evidence properly adduced at the trial (see People v Ventura, 66 NY2d 693; see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Middleton, 212 AD2d 809, 811; People v Smith, 204 AD2d 140; People v Barreau, 183 AD2d 904; People v Robinson, 137 AD2d 564; but see People v Luis, 189 AD2d 657, 659-660; People v Reina, 94 AD2d 727). Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant’s counsel from arguing on summation that the psychiatric testimony established that he could not have formed the culpable mental state for intentional murder where the defense failed to give timely notice of its intent to offer psychiatric evidence in support of that theory at trial (see CPL 250.10 [1] [c]; People v Almonor, 93 NY2d 571, 580; People v Yates, 290 AD2d 888; People v Rivers, 281 AD2d 348; but see People v Wilcox, 194 AD2d 820, 821).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ordering that the jury be sequestered notwithstanding the defendant’s attempt to waive sequestration (see CPL 310.10; People v Bello, 82 NY2d 862; People v Paul, 79 NY2d 970; People v Fernandez, 229 AD2d 447). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Watson
2018 NY Slip Op 5342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Halimi (Albert)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
People v. Singh
138 A.D.3d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Bynum
33 A.D.3d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Paixao
23 A.D.3d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Brown
4 A.D.3d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Bien
1 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
301 A.D.2d 666, 753 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romano-nyappdiv-2003.