People v. Tucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tucci

112 A.D.2d 19, 490 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50651

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

DecidedJune 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 19 (People v. Tucci) 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. Tucci, 112 A.D.2d 19, 490 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction of murder in the second degree. The prosecutor improperly questioned defendant about women’s underwear in his possession, which was not related in any way to the crime charged, and improperly mentioned the underwear in summation. He also was wrong in referring in summation to a phone call about the victim which was not in evidence and would have been improper if offered. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, these improprieties cannot be said to have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The court erred in refusing a requested missing witness charge but this was harmless error in light of the evidence.

[20]*20Defendant’s other claim of error is without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction of murder in the second degree. The prosecutor improperly questioned defendant about women’s underwear in his possession, which was not related in any way to the crime charged, and improperly mentioned the underwear in summation. He also was wrong in referring in summation to a phone call about the victim which was not in evidence and would have been improper if offered. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, these improprieties cannot be said to have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The court erred in refusing a requested missing witness charge but this was harmless error in light of the evidence.

[20]*20Defendant’s other claim of error is without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 19, 490 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tucci-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack