People v. Scriven

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scriven

273 A.D.2d 145, 710 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7148

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

DecidedJune 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 145 (People v. Scriven) 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. Scriven, 273 A.D.2d 145, 710 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered December 2, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were largely responsive to defendant’s summation and do not warrant reversal when these remarks are viewed in context of the entire summation, the evidence, and the court’s charge (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those relating to Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered December 2, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were largely responsive to defendant’s summation and do not warrant reversal when these remarks are viewed in context of the entire summation, the evidence, and the court’s charge (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those relating to Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 145, 710 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scriven-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack