People v. Simpson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simpson

50 A.D.3d 452, 855 N.Y.S.2d 500

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

DecidedApril 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 452 (People v. Simpson) 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. Simpson, 50 A.D.3d 452, 855 N.Y.S.2d 500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 13, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury [453]*453trial, of four counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 35 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after the court had completed its charge to the jury, that was based on the prosecutor’s attempt in summation to explain the absence of fingerprint evidence. The comment constituted a fair response to the defense summation (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]). Defendant’s other challenge to the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 13, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury [453]*453trial, of four counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 35 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after the court had completed its charge to the jury, that was based on the prosecutor’s attempt in summation to explain the absence of fingerprint evidence. The comment constituted a fair response to the defense summation (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]). Defendant’s other challenge to the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 452, 855 N.Y.S.2d 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simpson-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack