From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2001-02248.

Decided February 2, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 26, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Benjamin A. Darche of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing the jury's request for a readback of the defense counsel's summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 474; People v. Dixon, 277 A.D.2d 65). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit since the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing the request ( see People v. Dixon, supra; People v. McClary, 197 A.D.2d 640).

PRUDENTI, P.J., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JAHEIM SMITH, appellant

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 876

Citing Cases

People v. Smalls

The defendant's contention that a gun should have been suppressed because he allegedly was subjected to an…

People v. Nunez

However, contrary to the defendant's assertion, there was no “spillover” effect emanating from this error…