People v. Singletary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Singletary

283 A.D.2d 594, 724 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [595] County (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 10, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s general motion for a trial order of dismissal did not preserve for appellate review his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 270 AD2d 496; People v Banks, 258 AD2d 525, 526). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain comments in the prosecutor’s summation constituted reversible error (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944; People v Rosario, 195 AD2d 577). In any event, many if not all of the challenged comments were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151). To the extent that there may have been error, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). Altman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Smith, 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 [595] County (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 10, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s general motion for a trial order of dismissal did not preserve for appellate review his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 270 AD2d 496; People v Banks, 258 AD2d 525, 526). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain comments in the prosecutor’s summation constituted reversible error (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944; People v Rosario, 195 AD2d 577). In any event, many if not all of the challenged comments were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151). To the extent that there may have been error, it was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). Altman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

People v. Singletary, 283 A.D.2d 594, 724 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

283 A.D.2d 594 (People v. Singletary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related