From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued January 28, 2000

March 17, 2000

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered October 7, 1998, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, David Bendik, and Peter Mason of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor's conduct on summation was improper in that she appealed to the sympathy of the jury, made inflammatory remarks, and attempted to shift the burden of proof. Although some portions of the prosecutor's summation may have been improper, given the overwhelming proof of guilt, any error was harmless (see, People v. Brosnan, 32 N.Y.2d 254, 262; People v. Nazario, 168 A.D.2d 643).

JOY, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Harrell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. JAMES HARRELL, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Mar 17, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 869

Citing Cases

People v. Tucker

Some of the prosecutor's comments during summation were responsive to arguments raised by the defendant's…

People v. Ivory

In any event, some of the challenged remarks were proper because they constituted either fair comment upon…