From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 13, 1990
158 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

February 13, 1990


Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.).

The prosecutor's comments in summation were either clarified by curative instructions, a fair response to defendant's summation, or within the "broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399). In any event, any error that may have been committed was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Nor was the sentence unduly harsh. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction", we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Pittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 13, 1990
158 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Pittman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FOX PITTMAN, Also…

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

Date published: Feb 13, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
551 N.Y.S.2d 35

Citing Cases

People v. Olsowske

05; People v. Holden, 244 A.D.2d 961; People v. Jacobs, 225 A.D.2d 1088, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 880). In any…

People v. Khan

Nor was the prosecutor's summation improper as the comments were in response to arguments raised by the…