People v. Larsen

Citation157 A.D.2d 672,549 N.Y.S.2d 772
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lance LARSEN, Appellant.
Decision Date08 January 1990
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Phyllis E. Boltax, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Peter R. Chatzinoff, Susan V. Bloch and Michael Levine, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, KUNZEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), rendered April 16, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

During the course of trial, the prosecution elicited testimony from the arresting officer in which he repeated the contents of the description of the perpetrator as received over the police radio. On appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the admission of this testimony, which allegedly impermissibly bolstered the complaining witnesses' identification of the defendant (see, People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 113 N.E.2d 841), deprived him of a fair trial.

Although the police officer did not state that the defendant matched the description given by the radio transmission, the jury could have reasonably so inferred. Thus, we agree with the defendant that the police officer's testimony implicitly bolstered the identification testimony and that it was error to admit this testimony (see, People v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906, 487 N.Y.S.2d 96). Nevertheless, we find the error harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; see also, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 970, 457 N.Y.S.2d 230, 443 N.E.2d 478).

The defendant also attributes prejudicial error to certain of the prosecutor's remarks in summation. In one instance, the court sustained defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's remarks and gave the jury instructions which effectively cured any possible prejudice to the defendant. Defense counsel did not request further curative instructions or move for a mistrial. Thus, the defendant's claim of error with respect thereto is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276). Defense counsel failed to make any objection at all to another allegedly improper comment made by the prosecutor and hence this claim of error is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Speaks
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 janvier 2015
    ...to a witness's out-of-court description of the perpetrator (see People v. Byron, 171 A.D.2d 802, 567 N.Y.S.2d 753 ; People v. Larsen, 157 A.D.2d 672, 549 N.Y.S.2d 772 ; People v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906, 487 N.Y.S.2d 96 ). Improper bolstering occurs where testimony provides official confir......
  • People v. Byron
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 18 mars 1991
    ... ... Griffith, 80 A.D.2d 590, 435 N.Y.S.2d 767) ...         Since a new trial has been ordered we note that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to testify as to the description of the perpetrators given to her by the complainant (see, People v. Larsen, ... 157 A.D.2d 672, 549 N.Y.S.2d 772; People v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906, 487 N.Y.S.2d 96). While, under the circumstances of this case, this error would not warrant reversal of the defendant's conviction (see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 457 N.Y.S.2d 230, 443 N.E.2d 478; People v ... ...
  • People v. Thompson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 18 avril 1994
    ...57 N.Y.2d 969, 457 N.Y.S.2d 230, 443 N.E.2d 478; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Larsen, 157 A.D.2d 672, 549 N.Y.S.2d 772; People v. Briggs, 156 A.D.2d 574, 549 N.Y.S.2d We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to ......
  • People v. Hubbard
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 juin 1992
    ...comments is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Larsen, 157 A.D.2d 672, 549 N.Y.S.2d 772). In any event, in light of the court's prompt action in sustaining defense counsel's objection to the challenged remarks ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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