From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Echols

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 4, 1993
190 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 4, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul P.E. Bookson, J.).


To the extent that defendant has preserved any claim with respect to the prosecutor's summation, we find that the remarks were fair response to the defense summation (see, People v Montrose, 155 A.D.2d 376, 377, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 870), which implied that the police witnesses were lying. Moreover, objections to two remarks were immediately sustained and no further relief was requested. Nothing in the court's unobjected-to charge with respect to drawing inferences could have misled the jury, as defendant only now claims, as to the proper standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was explicitly and repeatedly explained to the jury (People v Mosley, 67 N.Y.2d 985; People v Cruz, 172 A.D.2d 383, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 964).

Finally, under the circumstances, we do not find that the sentence imposed was excessive.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Echols

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 4, 1993
190 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Echols

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEVIN ECHOLS, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 4, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

People v. McFarlane

t's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to elicit that defendant had been previously charged with a…