People v. Steans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Steans

173 A.D.2d 344, 569 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282

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

DecidedMay 23, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 344 (People v. Steans) 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. Steans, 173 A.D.2d 344, 569 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J., at suppression hearing; Martin Rettinger, J., at trial), rendered November 28, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years, to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction was not against the weight of the evidence. (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490.) Defendant’s guilt of the robbery of the bar was amply established by the in-court and lineup identifications made by the bartender, who had ample opportunity to view him. Although the bartender did identify the photograph of another person as a possible suspect shortly after the robbery, his later identifications of defendant were unequivocal. Defendant was also tied to the robbery by the missing water gun, which the police recovered at the time of defendant’s arrest.

The redirect examination of the bartender was not overly broad (People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445). Any possible prejudice to defendant on account of a comment by the prosecutor in summation (to the effect that defendant should have produced the photograph of the person identified by the bartender as a possible suspect) was cured by the court’s prompt intervention and curative instructions. (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J., at suppression hearing; Martin Rettinger, J., at trial), rendered November 28, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years, to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction was not against the weight of the evidence. (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490.) Defendant’s guilt of the robbery of the bar was amply established by the in-court and lineup identifications made by the bartender, who had ample opportunity to view him. Although the bartender did identify the photograph of another person as a possible suspect shortly after the robbery, his later identifications of defendant were unequivocal. Defendant was also tied to the robbery by the missing water gun, which the police recovered at the time of defendant’s arrest.

The redirect examination of the bartender was not overly broad (People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445). Any possible prejudice to defendant on account of a comment by the prosecutor in summation (to the effect that defendant should have produced the photograph of the person identified by the bartender as a possible suspect) was cured by the court’s prompt intervention and curative instructions. (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 344, 569 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steans-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack