From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Norwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 2002
299 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

KA 01-00480

November 15, 2002.

Appeal form a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered July 27, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree.

EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (PATRICK H. FIERRO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, KEHOE, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 25 years to life. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening statement. Further, the evidence against defendant was not wholly circumstantial, and thus Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant's request for a circumstantial evidence charge ( see People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 636; People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879, 880-881; People v. Bretagna, 298 N.Y. 323, 325-326, cert denied 336 U.S. 919, reh denied 336 U.S. 922).


Summaries of

People v. Norwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 2002
299 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Norwood

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANDRE NORWOOD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 15, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
750 N.Y.S.2d 545

Citing Cases

Norwood v. Artis

Further, the evidence against defendant was not wholly circumstantial, and thus [the trial court] did not err…