People v. Steakin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Steakin

214 A.D.2d 690, 625 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4287

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

DecidedApril 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 690 (People v. Steakin) 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. Steakin, 214 A.D.2d 690, 625 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered January 22, 1993, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Reding, 167 AD2d 716). As to those contentions which were properly preserved, the challenged comments were, for the most part, fair responses to the defense counsel’s attacks upon witness credibility (see, People v Diaz, 209 AD2d 632; People v Boyajian, 148 AD2d 740, 741) or properly limited to matters within the four corners of the evidence (see, People v Stanley, 163 AD2d 435). In any event, any error with respect to the preserved or unpreserved claims was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Hart and Krausman, 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 (George, J.), rendered January 22, 1993, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s summation are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Reding, 167 AD2d 716). As to those contentions which were properly preserved, the challenged comments were, for the most part, fair responses to the defense counsel’s attacks upon witness credibility (see, People v Diaz, 209 AD2d 632; People v Boyajian, 148 AD2d 740, 741) or properly limited to matters within the four corners of the evidence (see, People v Stanley, 163 AD2d 435). In any event, any error with respect to the preserved or unpreserved claims was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 690, 625 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steakin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack