People v. Stanley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stanley

161 A.D.2d 1146, 558 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9128

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1146 (People v. Stanley) 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. Stanley, 161 A.D.2d 1146, 558 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of hearsay evidence that impermissibly bolstered the victim’s testimony. He asserts six instances of alleged improper bolstering, four of which are unpreserved for our review. We decline to exercise our power to review the unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Insofar as the alleged errors are preserved, the admission of bolstering testimony must be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; see also, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d [1147]*1147969, 970; People v Barnes, 144 AD2d 995, lv denied 73 NY2d 889; People v Harper, 144 AD2d 946, lv denied 73 NY2d 892). The identification testimony of Officer Blair and Investigator Fantanza did not prejudice defendant because his identity was not an issue in this case (cf., People v Felder, 108 AD2d 869, 870). In view of our determination, the argument that unrelated judgments must be vacated (see, People v Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862) is rendered moot. In any event, those judgments are not before us.

Finally, the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.— robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of hearsay evidence that impermissibly bolstered the victim’s testimony. He asserts six instances of alleged improper bolstering, four of which are unpreserved for our review. We decline to exercise our power to review the unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Insofar as the alleged errors are preserved, the admission of bolstering testimony must be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; see also, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d [1147]*1147969, 970; People v Barnes, 144 AD2d 995, lv denied 73 NY2d 889; People v Harper, 144 AD2d 946, lv denied 73 NY2d 892). The identification testimony of Officer Blair and Investigator Fantanza did not prejudice defendant because his identity was not an issue in this case (cf., People v Felder, 108 AD2d 869, 870). In view of our determination, the argument that unrelated judgments must be vacated (see, People v Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862) is rendered moot. In any event, those judgments are not before us.

Finally, the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.— robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1146, 558 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stanley-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack