People v. Schramm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schramm

92 A.D.2d 905, 460 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17299

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Schramm) 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. Schramm, 92 A.D.2d 905, 460 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered August 31, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. During the course of the trial, and in summation, the prosecutor made certain improvident comments, e.g., implying that defendant had the duty to call a witness in his behalf, characterizing defendant’s testimony as “lies”, and vouching for the complaining witness’ credibility. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we find these errors to be harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Defendant’s other contentions lack merit. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered August 31, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. During the course of the trial, and in summation, the prosecutor made certain improvident comments, e.g., implying that defendant had the duty to call a witness in his behalf, characterizing defendant’s testimony as “lies”, and vouching for the complaining witness’ credibility. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we find these errors to be harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Defendant’s other contentions lack merit. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 905, 460 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schramm-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack