People v. Tecle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tecle

227 A.D.2d 243, 642 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5208

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

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 243 (People v. Tecle) 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. Tecle, 227 A.D.2d 243, 642 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered May 20, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court instructed the jury that the burden of proof shifted to the defendant where he offers evidence in his own behalf is unpreserved as a matter of law, since he raised no objection to the charge (see, People v Brown, 220 AD2d 250, lv denied 87 NY2d 898; see also, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Moreover, the omission of the word "never” appears to be a stenographic or typographical error (see, People v Encarnacion, 190 AD2d 607, 608, lv denied 81 NY2d 1072), since the court had just advised the jury, moments before, that "the burden never shifts to the defendant”.

[244]*244The prosecution’s rebuttal testimony was improper only in form, and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve his appellate claims that the testimony constituted bolstering and inappropriately injected the credibility of the prosecutor into the case (see, People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294), by failing to specifically object on those grounds (see, People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879). Similarly, no objection was raised as to the prosecutor’s comments on summation, rendering such claim unpreserved (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). We also note the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leif, J.), rendered May 20, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court instructed the jury that the burden of proof shifted to the defendant where he offers evidence in his own behalf is unpreserved as a matter of law, since he raised no objection to the charge (see, People v Brown, 220 AD2d 250, lv denied 87 NY2d 898; see also, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Moreover, the omission of the word "never” appears to be a stenographic or typographical error (see, People v Encarnacion, 190 AD2d 607, 608, lv denied 81 NY2d 1072), since the court had just advised the jury, moments before, that "the burden never shifts to the defendant”.

[244]*244The prosecution’s rebuttal testimony was improper only in form, and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve his appellate claims that the testimony constituted bolstering and inappropriately injected the credibility of the prosecutor into the case (see, People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294), by failing to specifically object on those grounds (see, People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879). Similarly, no objection was raised as to the prosecutor’s comments on summation, rendering such claim unpreserved (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). We also note the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 243, 642 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tecle-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack