People v. Ware

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ware

57 A.D.2d 634, 393 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11656

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

DecidedApril 25, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 634 (People v. Ware) 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. Ware, 57 A.D.2d 634, 393 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 30, 1975, convicting'him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated May 10, 1976, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No contentions have been raised with regard to the sufficiency of the facts upon which the judgment is based. Appeal from the order dismissed as academic in view of the disposition of the appeal from the judgment. The prosecutor’s repeated attempts to bolster the identification testimony of the complaining witness and his remarks on summation, which actually recounted bolstering which had been held inadmissible during the course of the trial, were so prejudicial in the context of this case as to require a new trial (see People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; cf. People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237-238). The other contentions advanced by appellant are without merit. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 30, 1975, convicting'him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated May 10, 1976, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No contentions have been raised with regard to the sufficiency of the facts upon which the judgment is based. Appeal from the order dismissed as academic in view of the disposition of the appeal from the judgment. The prosecutor’s repeated attempts to bolster the identification testimony of the complaining witness and his remarks on summation, which actually recounted bolstering which had been held inadmissible during the course of the trial, were so prejudicial in the context of this case as to require a new trial (see People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; cf. People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237-238). The other contentions advanced by appellant are without merit. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 634, 393 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ware-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack