From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1991
172 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 18, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.).


Defendant was charged under Indictment No. 4991/85 in connection with the burning of a numbers betting parlor on August 23, 1984, in which three persons died. William Diaz recruited defendant for the crime on behalf of defendant's co-defendant Conrado Pons. Pons worked for a large "numbers corporation", which was trying to eliminate its competition.

Defendant was charged under Indictment No. 4895/85 with setting fire to yet another numbers location, having been again recruited by Diaz. Subsequently, Diaz agreed to cooperate with the authorities in various counties in exchange for leniency, and testified against defendant at trial.

Defendant contends that he was prejudiced at both trials by improper comments made by the prosecutors on summation in which, among other things, they sought to inflame the jurors' emotions, vouched for the credibility of witnesses, referred to facts not in evidence, and attempted to shift the burden of proof.

Specifically, at the trial held in connection with Indictment No. 4991/85, the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors' emotions by referring to a poem dealing with the death of one of two close friends and compared the thoughts of the poet with the thoughts of the friends of the deceased victims of the fire. While the comments were clearly erroneous, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence against defendant. (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230.) The other comments made by the prosecutors at both trials to which error is sought to be ascribed, were either responsive to the respective summations of defense counsel or were adequately cured by the court's instructions. (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 400; People v Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294.)

Defendant's claim that at the trial of Indictment No. 4991/85 the court improperly permitted the introduction of uncharged crimes, is unpreserved and in any event is without merit. In particular, the testimony describing William Diaz as an "enforcer" for the numbers corporation and describing the "corporation's" reason for ordering the arsons, was necessary background information. Moreover, Molineux considerations do not apply to the prior uncharged crimes of the prosecutor's main witness. (People v. McCray, 165 A.D.2d 765.)

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1991
172 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY MORGAN…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 613

Citing Cases

People v. Pons

The prosecutor's summation was reviewed by this Court on the appeal of co-defendant Morgan, and after review…