People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santiago

43 A.D.2d 925, 352 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5675

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 925 (People v. Santiago) 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. Santiago, 43 A.D.2d 925, 352 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

'Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on October 3, 1972, convicting the defendant after trial of the crime of possession of a weapon and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from two and one third to seven years, unanimously affirmed. We note that during the course of his summation the Assistant District Attorney, in characterizing the defendant, made several remarks which were obviously improper. However, since these remarks were not prejudicial, we find no reversible error and, since the evidence of guilt was clear and the rights of the defendant were not violated, the affirmance is warranted (cf. People v. Brosnan, 32 N Y 2d 254, 262). Concur — Markewich, J. P., Nunez, Kupferman, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

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

'Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on October 3, 1972, convicting the defendant after trial of the crime of possession of a weapon and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from two and one third to seven years, unanimously affirmed. We note that during the course of his summation the Assistant District Attorney, in characterizing the defendant, made several remarks which were obviously improper. However, since these remarks were not prejudicial, we find no reversible error and, since the evidence of guilt was clear and the rights of the defendant were not violated, the affirmance is warranted (cf. People v. Brosnan, 32 N Y 2d 254, 262). Concur — Markewich, J. P., Nunez, Kupferman, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 925, 352 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santiago-nyappdiv-1974.