People v. Staley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Staley

130 A.D.2d 601, 515 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46615

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

DecidedMay 11, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 601 (People v. Staley) 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. Staley, 130 A.D.2d 601, 515 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered January 6, 1986, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that the improper remarks of the prosecutor during his summation constituted reversible error. We disagree.

There were a few isolated instances during the prosecutor’s summation where the prosecutor exceeded the "bounds of legitimate advocacy” by criticizing the defense counsel’s strategy and by vouching for the credibility of a People’s witness (see, People v Shanis, 36 NY2d 697, 699; People v Hicks, 102 AD2d 173; People v Ricchiuti, 93 AD2d 842). We deplore these comments and caution the prosecutor to refrain from them in the future. Nevertheless, a reversal of the defendant’s judgment of conviction is not warranted since (1) for the most part the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, including the defendant’s agency defense (People v Heffron, 59 AD2d 263), and (2) the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining argument, i.e., that the sentence imposed upon him was excessive, and find it to be without merit (Penal Law §§ 220.39, 220.16, 70.00 [2] [b]; [3] [b]). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Kunzeman, 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 (Goldstein, J.), rendered January 6, 1986, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that the improper remarks of the prosecutor during his summation constituted reversible error. We disagree.

There were a few isolated instances during the prosecutor’s summation where the prosecutor exceeded the "bounds of legitimate advocacy” by criticizing the defense counsel’s strategy and by vouching for the credibility of a People’s witness (see, People v Shanis, 36 NY2d 697, 699; People v Hicks, 102 AD2d 173; People v Ricchiuti, 93 AD2d 842). We deplore these comments and caution the prosecutor to refrain from them in the future. Nevertheless, a reversal of the defendant’s judgment of conviction is not warranted since (1) for the most part the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, including the defendant’s agency defense (People v Heffron, 59 AD2d 263), and (2) the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining argument, i.e., that the sentence imposed upon him was excessive, and find it to be without merit (Penal Law §§ 220.39, 220.16, 70.00 [2] [b]; [3] [b]). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 601, 515 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-staley-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack