People v. Seabrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seabrook

191 A.D.2d 524, 596 N.Y.S.2d 713

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 524 (People v. Seabrook) 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. Seabrook, 191 A.D.2d 524, 596 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered February 14, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that certain allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial. However, the prosecutor’s comments can only be fairly evaluated in comparison with the summation comments of the defense counsel (see, People v Bosmond, 154 AD2d 689). Upon review of the record, the prosecutor’s remarks either constituted a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation or were within the confines of the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v Jones, 173 AD2d 853, 854). Therefore, the defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial.

In addition, the sentence imposed is not excessive given the defendant’s criminal history and the circumstances of this case (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered February 14, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that certain allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial. However, the prosecutor’s comments can only be fairly evaluated in comparison with the summation comments of the defense counsel (see, People v Bosmond, 154 AD2d 689). Upon review of the record, the prosecutor’s remarks either constituted a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation or were within the confines of the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v Jones, 173 AD2d 853, 854). Therefore, the defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial.

In addition, the sentence imposed is not excessive given the defendant’s criminal history and the circumstances of this case (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Fiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 524, 596 N.Y.S.2d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seabrook-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack