People v. Seda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seda

276 A.D.2d 650, 714 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10380

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 650 (People v. Seda) 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. Seda, 276 A.D.2d 650, 714 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered July 22, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in refusing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause. [651]*651While the jurors expressed their concern that it would be difficult to assess the credibility of the People’s witnesses in the absence of cross-examination, they both acknowledged that the People had the burden of proof and indicated that they would not convict the defendant unless the People met their burden of proof. The jurors did not express an unwillingness to follow the law, nor did they shift the burden of proof to the defendant, as he contends (see, People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241).

The defendant’s contentions regarding certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement and his summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Wilson, 265 AD2d 434). In any event, while we agree that some of the challenged comments were improper, reversal is not warranted in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, 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, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered July 22, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not err in refusing to excuse two prospective jurors for cause. [651]*651While the jurors expressed their concern that it would be difficult to assess the credibility of the People’s witnesses in the absence of cross-examination, they both acknowledged that the People had the burden of proof and indicated that they would not convict the defendant unless the People met their burden of proof. The jurors did not express an unwillingness to follow the law, nor did they shift the burden of proof to the defendant, as he contends (see, People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241).

The defendant’s contentions regarding certain remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement and his summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Wilson, 265 AD2d 434). In any event, while we agree that some of the challenged comments were improper, reversal is not warranted in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 650, 714 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seda-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack