People v. Billups
| Decision Date | 21 July 2003 |
| Citation | 762 N.Y.S.2d 521,307 A.D.2d 323 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JAMAL BILLUPS, Appellant. |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's summation comment regarding the defendant's failure to call his former girlfriend as a witness did not, in light of the defendant's testimony, constitute an impermissible effort to shift the burden of proof (see People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994 [1994]; People v Rivera, 292 AD2d 549 [2002]; see also People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519 [1977]). While the prosecutor improperly implied during her summation that the defendant should have called someone named "Jimmy" as a witness, such error does not warrant reversal under the circumstances of this case (see People v Ayers, 214 AD2d 459 [1995]; see also People v De Jesus, supra).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burroughs
...89;People v. Paul, 82 A.D.3d 1267, 1267–1268, 919 N.Y.S.2d 393), and, in any event, does not warrant reversal ( see People v. Billups, 307 A.D.2d 323, 762 N.Y.S.2d 521). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; Peopl......
- People v. Brunson