People v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 12 June 1989
• Citation: 151 A.D.2d 591,543 N.Y.S.2d 921
• Parties: The People, etc., Respondent, v. Robert CAMPBELL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 921

543 N.Y.S.2d 921

151 A.D.2d 591

The People, etc., Respondent, v. Robert CAMPBELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 12, 1989

Bruce Cohen, Brooklyn, for appellant. Robert Campbell, pro se. Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Michael Gore and Linda Breen, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.), rendered October 22, 1985, convicting him of assault in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the manner in which the court marshaled the evidence in its charge is without merit. The court fairly and accurately summarized the testimony of all three primary witnesses, and was not further required to set forth all the contentions of the parties or the inconsistencies in the evidence (see, People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665, 485 N.Y.S.2d 250, 474 N.E.2d 610; People v. Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073, 392 N.Y.S.2d 255, 360 N.E.2d 933; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 485 N.Y.S.2d 332, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 837, 493 N.Y.S.2d 129, 482 N.E.2d 924; People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701, 535 N.Y.S.2d 20). Moreover, the court also advised the jurors that their recollection of the evidence was controlling (see, People v. McDonald, supra; People v. Scales, 121 A.D.2d 578, 503 N.Y.S.2d 629). Further, while the People concede that two remarks made by the prosecutor on summation would have been better left unsaid, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt these remarks were harmless error (see, People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 485 N.Y.S.2d 332, supra ). We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

BROWN, J.P., and KOOPER, HARWOOD and ROSENBLATT, JJ., concur.