People v. Winfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Winfield

154 A.D.2d 725

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 725 (People v. Winfield) 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. Winfield, 154 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered December 12, 1988, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s present contention, the trial court did not err in denying his request for a justification charge. Consideration of the trial record in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142) demonstrates that there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support that defense (see, e.g., People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks in summation constituted a fair response to the defense counsel’s closing statement (see, e.g., People v Crawford, 130 AD2d 678), and "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Spatt, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered December 12, 1988, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s present contention, the trial court did not err in denying his request for a justification charge. Consideration of the trial record in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Padgett, 60 NY2d 142) demonstrates that there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support that defense (see, e.g., People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816; People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks in summation constituted a fair response to the defense counsel’s closing statement (see, e.g., People v Crawford, 130 AD2d 678), and "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Spatt, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winfield-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack