People v. Ware

272 A.D.2d 866, 708 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although we reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 36, affd 65 NY2d 837), we express our strong disapproval of the comment by the prosecutor that, if being drunk was a defense, he would have to lay off half of his staff. The other alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct on summation are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We further conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Ware, 272 A.D.2d 866, 708 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

272 A.D.2d 866 (People v. Ware) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ware v. New York
412 F. Supp. 2d 236 (W.D. New York, 2005)