People v. Swindall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swindall

128 A.D.2d 819, 513 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44508

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 819 (People v. Swindall) 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. Swindall, 128 A.D.2d 819, 513 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered November 16, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that reversible error was committed by the prosecutor in his summation when he allegedly vouched for the credibility of his witnesses and inflamed the jury by his comments (see, People v Whitehurst, 87 AD2d 896; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). The defendant’s argument must be rejected. The record indicates that defense counsel did not interpose a timely objection to the remarks in the prosecutor’s summation of which he now complains and consequently the alleged errors have not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, reversal in the interests of justice is not warranted since for the most part, the remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Scott, 108 AD2d 882; People v Gutierrez, 105 AD2d 754). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered November 16, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that reversible error was committed by the prosecutor in his summation when he allegedly vouched for the credibility of his witnesses and inflamed the jury by his comments (see, People v Whitehurst, 87 AD2d 896; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). The defendant’s argument must be rejected. The record indicates that defense counsel did not interpose a timely objection to the remarks in the prosecutor’s summation of which he now complains and consequently the alleged errors have not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, reversal in the interests of justice is not warranted since for the most part, the remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Scott, 108 AD2d 882; People v Gutierrez, 105 AD2d 754). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 819, 513 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swindall-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack