People v. Releford

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Seaton

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Finally, although certain comments on the evidence by defense counsel on summation could be construed as unfavorable to defendant, counsel nevertheless emphasized alleged shortcomings in the investigation of the crime, challenged the victim's credibility with respect to whether he remembered the incident, and pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. We conclude that any error with respect to those comments was not "sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial" (People v Releford, 126 AD3d 1407, 1407, lv denied 25 NY3d 1170).

  2. People v. Seaton

    147 A.D.3d 1531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Finally, although certain comments on the evidence by defense counsel on summation could be construed as unfavorable to defendant, counsel nevertheless emphasized alleged shortcomings in the investigation of the crime, challenged the victim's credibility with respect to whether he remembered the incident, and pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. We conclude that any error with respect to those comments was not "sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial" (People v. Releford, 126 A.D.3d 1407, 1407, 4 N.Y.S.3d 804, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1170, 15 N.Y.S.3d 301, 36 N.E.3d 104 ). It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

  3. People v. Dixon

    132 A.D.3d 1317 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    77, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883, rearg. denied3 N.Y.3d 702, 785 N.Y.S.2d 29, 818 N.E.2d 671). Although defense counsel failed to object to the lack of a foundation for the dog tracking evidence ( see People v. Towsley, 85 A.D.3d 1549, 1551, 924 N.Y.S.2d 708, lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 905, 933 N.Y.S.2d 660, 957 N.E.2d 1164; People v. Vandenbosch, 216 A.D.2d 884, 885, 628 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied86 N.Y.2d 804, 632 N.Y.S.2d 517, 656 N.E.2d 616; People v. Abdullah, 134 A.D.2d 503, 504, 521 N.Y.S.2d 286, lv. denied71 N.Y.2d 965, 529 N.Y.S.2d 76, 524 N.E.2d 430), and failed to request a limiting instruction with respect to that evidence ( see People v. Gangler, 227 A.D.2d 946, 946, 643 N.Y.S.2d 839, lv. denied88 N.Y.2d 985, 649 N.Y.S.2d 392, 672 N.E.2d 618, reconsideration denied89 N.Y.2d 922, 654 N.Y.S.2d 724, 677 N.E.2d 296; Abdullah, 134 A.D.2d at 504, 521 N.Y.S.2d 286), we conclude that those errors were not so egregious and prejudicial to defendant as to deny him a fair trial ( see People v. Releford, 126 A.D.3d 1407, 1408, 4 N.Y.S.3d 804, lv. denied25 N.Y.3d 1170, 15 N.Y.S.3d 301, 36 N.E.3d 104; see generally People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 480, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123). The dog tracking evidence concerned only the issue of defendant's identity as the shooter, and the evidence established that the police located defendant after the shooting even without the dog tracking evidence. In addition, two witnesses identified defendant at trial as the shooter.