People v. Thorne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thorne

165 A.D.2d 680, 564 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11014

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D.2d 680 (People v. Thorne) 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. Thorne, 165 A.D.2d 680, 564 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered December 9, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]) and tampering with a witness in the third degree (Penal Law §215.11 [1]) and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Any error by the prosecutor in eliciting from the police officer, on the People’s direct case, that defendant had made no mention, at the time of his arrest, that moneys allegedly [681]*681stolen from complainant arose out of a drug transaction, rather than a robbery (People v De George, 73 NY2d 614, 620-621), was not preserved for review pursuant to CPL 470.05 (2). The unchallenged testimony of complainant was corroborated by defendant’s offer to return complainant’s money in exchange for complainant’s dropping of the charges, defendant’s flight and the observation of the arresting police officer, of facial injuries suffered by complainant during the robbery.

Defendant’s challenges to the propriety of several of the prosecutor’s summation remarks were, save one, unpreserved for review. Were we to reach those comments we would find them responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), as we do the preserved objection which was addressed by the trial court.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch 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 (Jay Gold, J.), rendered December 9, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]) and tampering with a witness in the third degree (Penal Law §215.11 [1]) and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Any error by the prosecutor in eliciting from the police officer, on the People’s direct case, that defendant had made no mention, at the time of his arrest, that moneys allegedly [681]*681stolen from complainant arose out of a drug transaction, rather than a robbery (People v De George, 73 NY2d 614, 620-621), was not preserved for review pursuant to CPL 470.05 (2). The unchallenged testimony of complainant was corroborated by defendant’s offer to return complainant’s money in exchange for complainant’s dropping of the charges, defendant’s flight and the observation of the arresting police officer, of facial injuries suffered by complainant during the robbery.

Defendant’s challenges to the propriety of several of the prosecutor’s summation remarks were, save one, unpreserved for review. Were we to reach those comments we would find them responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), as we do the preserved objection which was addressed by the trial court.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 680, 564 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thorne-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack