People v. Ryer

101 A.D.3d 907, 954 N.Y.2d 913

This text of 101 A.D.3d 907 (People v. Ryer) 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. Ryer, 101 A.D.3d 907, 954 N.Y.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[908]*908The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain remarks and questions posed by the trial court to various witnesses is without merit. None of the court’s questions or remarks prevented the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict based upon the evidence presented. The court kept the proceedings within the confines of the issues and encouraged clarity in the development of proof (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 946 [1978]; People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519, 523 [1977]). Although certain of the court’s comments during the course of the proceedings would have been better left unsaid, the defendant was not denied a fair trial by those remarks (see People v Moulton, 43 NY2d at 946; People v Pittam, 23 AD3d 412, 413 [2005]; People v Smalls, 293 AD2d 500 [2002]).

The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation are without merit. The challenged remarks either constituted fair comment on the evidence, were responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Smith, 94 AD3d 1023 [2012]; People v Lawton, 81 AD3d 663, 664 [2011]), or constituted harmless error (see People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976 [2012]; People v Mullings, 88 AD3d 745, 745-746 [2011]; People v Gadsden, 82 AD3d 902, 903 [2011]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Eng, P.J., Dillon, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. De Jesus
369 N.E.2d 752 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
People v. Moulton
374 N.E.2d 1243 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
People v. Halm
611 N.E.2d 281 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Pittam
23 A.D.3d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Lawton
81 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Gadsden
82 A.D.3d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Mullings
88 A.D.3d 745 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Smith
94 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Kinard
96 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Smalls
293 A.D.2d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.3d 907, 954 N.Y.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ryer-nyappdiv-2012.