People v. Campbell

Citation646 N.Y.S.2d 129,228 A.D.2d 689
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David CAMPBELL, Appellant.
Decision Date24 June 1996
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Jane Levitt, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Victor Barall, and Gerard J. Schriffen, of counsel), for respondent.



Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), rendered December 20, 1993, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that his conviction should be reversed because the prosecutor made a reference to an uncharged crime in his opening statement. The prosecutor neither disclosed the nature of the uncharged crime nor revealed any of its underlying details. Moreover, in its charge to the jury, the court explained that the attorneys' opening statements were not considered evidence upon which a determination could be based (see, People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1083, 462 N.Y.S.2d 639, 449 N.E.2d 419). Although we agree with the defendant's related argument that the trial court improperly admitted police testimony that one of the officers from the Robbery Identification Unit had been asked "to help out * * * apprehending two suspects", one of whom was identified as the defendant, this error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Ayala, 75 N.Y.2d 422, 431, 554 N.Y.S.2d 412, 553 N.E.2d 960; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

We also find unpersuasive the defendant's argument that he is entitled to a new trial due to the prosecutor's summation. While the prosecutor improperly argued that the police were looking to "arrest this defendant * * * on a murder case", the defense counsel's objection to the comment was sustained, and, although no request for curative instructions was made, the court averted any potential prejudice by promptly clarifying the misstatement (see, People v. Contreras, 194 A.D.2d 685, 686, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1004). Since the defense counsel neither raised an objection to the court's prompt clarification nor requested...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. McDonald
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 7, 2010
    ...N.Y.S.2d 713; People v. Barnes, 33 A.D.3d 811, 826 N.Y.S.2d 283; People v. Farrell, 228 A.D.2d 693, 646 N.Y.S.2d 124; People v. Campbell, 228 A.D.2d 689, 646 N.Y.S.2d 129; People v. Jefferson, 136 A.D.2d 655, 657, 523 N.Y.S.2d 887). Although some of the comments made reference to matters ou......
  • People v. McRae
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 1, 1999
    ...v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542; People v. Kovzelove, 242 A.D.2d 477, 662 N.Y.S.2d 119; People v. Campbell, 228 A.D.2d 689, 646 N.Y.S.2d 129; People v. Okafore, 72 N.Y.2d 81, 531 N.Y.S.2d 762, 527 N.E.2d 245; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, ......
  • People v. Campbell
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1996
    ...722 654 N.Y.S.2d 722 89 N.Y.2d 920, 677 N.E.2d 294 People v. David Campbell Court of Appeals of New York Dec 19, 1996 Levine, J. 228 A.D.2d 689, 646 N.Y.S.2d 129 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT