People v. Spruill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spruill

110 A.D.2d 981, 488 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48873

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

DecidedApril 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 981 (People v. Spruill) 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. Spruill, 110 A.D.2d 981, 488 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Defendant, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility when the crime was committed, was convicted after a trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, a class D felony. He received a sentence of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively with his prior sentence. On appeal, defendant’s attack is principally directed at the propriety of the prosecutor’s summation, which was unobjected to, and the severity of the sentence imposed. We affirm.

On summation, counsel can comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury has to decide, but must stay within the four corners of the evidence (People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105,109; see, People v Howard, 91 AD2d 1127, 1129). Here, the defense theory advanced was justification, and the prosecutor quite properly commented on that issue during summation. Furthermore, his remarks regarding the reliability of the testimony given by the correction officers constituted nothing more than a fair response to the challenge thereto made by the defense attorney in the course of his summation.

Nor do we find error in the sentence. It is less than the statutorily authorized maximum of seven years and properly runs consecutively with defendant’s prior sentence. In addition, there are no factors compelling leniency.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Defendant, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility when the crime was committed, was convicted after a trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, a class D felony. He received a sentence of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively with his prior sentence. On appeal, defendant’s attack is principally directed at the propriety of the prosecutor’s summation, which was unobjected to, and the severity of the sentence imposed. We affirm.

On summation, counsel can comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury has to decide, but must stay within the four corners of the evidence (People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105,109; see, People v Howard, 91 AD2d 1127, 1129). Here, the defense theory advanced was justification, and the prosecutor quite properly commented on that issue during summation. Furthermore, his remarks regarding the reliability of the testimony given by the correction officers constituted nothing more than a fair response to the challenge thereto made by the defense attorney in the course of his summation.

Nor do we find error in the sentence. It is less than the statutorily authorized maximum of seven years and properly runs consecutively with defendant’s prior sentence. In addition, there are no factors compelling leniency.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 981, 488 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spruill-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack