From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cheek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 1990
168 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 21, 1990

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of defendant's contentions requires reversal. Although at times the prosecutor's summation exceeded fair comment, it was not so egregious that it deprived defendant of a fair trial, particularly since the court sustained several of defense counsel's objections and gave curative instructions (see, People v. Mohammed, 151 A.D.2d 1018, 1019, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 815). Defendant has failed to preserve his contention regarding the court's charge on reasonable doubt and, in any event, when viewed in its entirety, the charge conveyed to the jury the proper legal principles regarding the burden of proof (see, People v. Luis, 145 A.D.2d 960, 961, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 923). Although the court erred in admitting a tape of the victim's telephone call to the police describing the incident that led to his death (see, People v. Wilson, 123 A.D.2d 457, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 659), the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.


Summaries of

People v. Cheek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 1990
168 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Cheek

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS CHEEK, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Schramm

Defendant also contends that throughout the trial the prosecutor engaged in a consistent pattern of flagrant…

People v. Ruffule

Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to receive the expert's…