From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 24, 1986
116 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

January 24, 1986

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this relatively brief, uncomplicated trial, the evidence of defendant's guilt of robbery in the second degree was overwhelming. All of defendant's claims of error, save one, are either without merit or unpreserved for review. As to the latter, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Creech, 60 N.Y.2d 895). The record demonstrates that defendant was not denied a fair trial (see, CPL 470.15 [a]), nor was he denied effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).

While it was error for the court to permit Officer Du Val, over objection, to testify that he observed the victim make a pretrial identification of defendant (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Thomas, 91 A.D.2d 857), the error was harmless when measured against the applicable standard for review of nonconstitutional error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242). There was clear and strong testimony identifying the defendant (see, People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584), and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the police officer's bolstering testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).


Summaries of

People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 24, 1986
116 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Richards

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GERALD RICHARDS…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1986

Citations

116 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Bates

We do not find the sentence imposed under the circumstances to be unduly harsh or excessive. Defendant's…