People v. Turner
| Decision Date | 03 April 1995 |
| Citation | 625 N.Y.S.2d 233,214 A.D.2d 594 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Cedric TURNER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel H. Guttmann, Smithtown, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Jay L. Weiner, and Nicole Beder, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered November 30, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The challenged comments in the prosecutor's summation were either within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment afforded counsel during summation, responsive to the defendant's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or related to matters which were fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790, 583 N.Y.S.2d 517; People v. Wilson, 173 A.D.2d 751, 570 N.Y.S.2d 626).
Further, the trial court did not violate its ruling prohibiting a particular witness from making an in-court identification, by allowing that witness to testify at trial as to his observations at the scene of the crime, including his description of the perpetrator (see, People v. Sanders, 66 N.Y.2d 906, 498 N.Y.S.2d 774, 489 N.E.2d 743).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5].
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ward
...was properly admitted into evidence ( see People v. Sanders, 66 N.Y.2d 906, 908, 498 N.Y.S.2d 774, 489 N.E.2d 743;People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594, 625 N.Y.S.2d 233), her showup identification and in-court identification of the defendant were not. Under New York law, “[s]howup identificatio......
-
People v. Spencer
...summation ( see People v. Perez, 77 A.D.3d 974, 909 N.Y.S.2d 644; People v. Gordon, 306 A.D.2d 422, 760 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594, 625 N.Y.S.2d 233). [87 A.D.3d 754] The defendant's remaining contentions are without...
-
People v. Wiley
...396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885;People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564;People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594, 625 N.Y.S.2d 233). To the extent that some of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by those......
-
People v. Perez
...v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281; People v. Gordon, 306 A.D.2d 422, 760 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Turner, 214 A.D.2d 594, 625 N.Y.S.2d 233). Any error resulting from the remaining challenged remarks was harmless ( see People v. Smalls, 65 A.D.3d 708, 883 N.Y.S.2d ......