People v. Widger

126 A.D.2d 962, 511 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42069
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 23, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Widger) 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. Widger, 126 A.D.2d 962, 511 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree arising from the January 31, 1984 robbery of the Oneida National Bank with a sawed-off shotgun. Defendant contends that it was error for the court to admit into evidence sawed-off shotgun barrels which were found in defendant’s house as they constituted evidence of uncharged crimes (Penal Law § 265.10 [6]; § 265.15 [5]). The People contend this evidence was properly admitted on the basis of the identity exception to the general rule against evidence of prior uncharged crimes (People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293). We agree. The prejudicial effect of this evidence being outweighed by its probative value in establishing defendant’s identity, it was correctly received into evidence (People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359; People v Sullivan, 103 AD2d 1035). Defendant further contends that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s misconduct in his opening statement and summation. No objection having been raised to any of these errors, they have not been preserved for our review (People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 324; People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 78). Further, though the prosecutor impermissibly impugned the defense, argued facts not in evidence, and bolstered his own witnesses’ testimony, we cannot say that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 36, affd 65 NY2d 837).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—robbery, first degree, and other offenses.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Scutt
254 A.D.2d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Mucha
207 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Bogoniewski
206 A.D.2d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Toumbis
204 A.D.2d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Dawkins
203 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Ellis
188 A.D.2d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Woodside
172 A.D.2d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Hazlett
167 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Miles
167 A.D.2d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
De Vito v. Katsch
157 A.D.2d 413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Curley
159 A.D.2d 969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Chaney
155 A.D.2d 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.2d 962, 511 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-widger-nyappdiv-1987.