People v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Watson

307 A.D.2d 939, 762 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedAugust 4, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 939 (People v. Watson) 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. Watson, 307 A.D.2d 939, 762 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered February 19, 2002, convicting her of arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of her, and comments on summation, regarding her failure to call the 911 emergency telephone number are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s questions and comments were proper since they bore on the defendant’s credibility concerning her testimony that a prosecution witness set the fire (see People v Narine, 261 AD2d 421, 422 [1999]; People v Weir, 120 AD2d 554, 555 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Townes, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered February 19, 2002, convicting her of arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of her, and comments on summation, regarding her failure to call the 911 emergency telephone number are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s questions and comments were proper since they bore on the defendant’s credibility concerning her testimony that a prosecution witness set the fire (see People v Narine, 261 AD2d 421, 422 [1999]; People v Weir, 120 AD2d 554, 555 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Townes, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 939, 762 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watson-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack