People v. Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scott

305 A.D.2d 133, 758 N.Y.S.2d 60, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4945

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

DecidedMay 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 133 (People v. Scott) 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. Scott, 305 A.D.2d 133, 758 N.Y.S.2d 60, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered July 6, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation remarks urging the jurors to use their common sense and life experiences could not have been interpreted by the jury as undermining the People’s burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, both in response to defendant’s objection, and again in its main charge, the court clearly instructed the jury on the reasonable doubt standard and its relation to the use of common sense (see People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998 [1996]). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the prosecutor’s summation and her cross-examination of a defense witness are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged conduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). We note that the court’s curative actions prevented such portions of the summation that might be viewed as objectionable from causing any prejudice. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered July 6, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation remarks urging the jurors to use their common sense and life experiences could not have been interpreted by the jury as undermining the People’s burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, both in response to defendant’s objection, and again in its main charge, the court clearly instructed the jury on the reasonable doubt standard and its relation to the use of common sense (see People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998 [1996]). Defendant’s remaining contentions concerning the prosecutor’s summation and her cross-examination of a defense witness are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged conduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). We note that the court’s curative actions prevented such portions of the summation that might be viewed as objectionable from causing any prejudice. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 133, 758 N.Y.S.2d 60, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scott-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack