From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Winters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions regarding allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). In any event, all but one of the comments alleged to be prejudicial were fair comment on the evidence ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105). The one comment that was improper was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Winters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Winters

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CLINTON WINTERS…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

People v. Borges

estimony was improperly elicited (see People v. Oliver, 92 A.D.3d 900, 901, 938 N.Y.S.2d 619 ), it was…

People v. Borges

In any event, while the testimony was improperly elicited (see People v Oliver, 92 AD3d 900, 901), it was…