People v. Wingfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wingfield

113 A.D.3d 798, 978 N.Y.2d 872

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 798 (People v. Wingfield) 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. Wingfield, 113 A.D.3d 798, 978 N.Y.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because of improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886 [1991]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819 [1982]; People v King, 110 AD3d 1005 [2013]). In [799]*799any event, each of the challenged remarks was either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel’s summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400-401 [1981]; see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because of improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886 [1991]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819 [1982]; People v King, 110 AD3d 1005 [2013]). In [799]*799any event, each of the challenged remarks was either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel’s summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400-401 [1981]; see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 798, 978 N.Y.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wingfield-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack