People v. Williamson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williamson

180 A.D.2d 444, 580 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1190

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 444 (People v. Williamson) 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. Williamson, 180 A.D.2d 444, 580 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered June 4, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The People proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The undercover officer’s testimony at trial, that defendant was the target of a police investigation and readily recognizable by his dreadlocks and beard, was not impermissible bolstering, in the circumstances of this case.

We have considered defendant’s argument that comments made by the prosecutor on summation deprived him of a fair trial, and find that error, if any, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered June 4, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The People proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The undercover officer’s testimony at trial, that defendant was the target of a police investigation and readily recognizable by his dreadlocks and beard, was not impermissible bolstering, in the circumstances of this case.

We have considered defendant’s argument that comments made by the prosecutor on summation deprived him of a fair trial, and find that error, if any, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 444, 580 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williamson-nyappdiv-1992.