People v. Evanson, 71 A.D.3d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Evanson, 71 A.D.3d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. McCray (nyappterm, 2016-07-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCray
N.Y. App. Term. · 2016 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, the court sustained defense counsel’s objections to certain of the remarks and repeatedly issued ameliorative instructions as to the significance of the summations of counsel, which instructions the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Baker, 14 NY3d 266, 274 [2010]; People v Evanson, 71 AD3d 782, 783 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Townsend
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, although the witness’s statement was improper, any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated by the court’s actions in striking the improper testimony and providing a curative instruction to the jury (see People v Benloss, 60 AD3d 686, 686-687 [2009]; People v Whitely, 41 AD3d 622, 623 [2007]; People v Dawkins, 27 AD3d 576, 577 [2006]), which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Evanson, 71 AD3d 782, 783 [2010]; People v Hardy, 22 AD3d 679, 680 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Townsend
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In any event, although the witness’s statement was improper, any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated by the court’s actions in striking the improper testimony and providing a curative instruction to the jury (see People v Benloss, 60 AD3d 686, 686-687 [2009]; People v Whitely, 41 AD3d 622, 623 [2007]; People v Dawkins, 27 AD3d 576, 577 [2006]), which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Evanson, 71 AD3d 782, 783 [2010]; People v Hardy, 22 AD3d 679, 680 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pickney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation at the trial under indictment No. 2462/07 either were within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Philips, 30 AD3d 618, 619 [2006]), were fair comment on the evidence (see People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]), were fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Evanson, 71 AD3d 782, 783 [2010]; People v Jones, 294 AD2d 517, 517 [2002]; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]), or constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; P…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Evanson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 9, 2010.
71 A.D.3d 782
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the de[*783] fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered April 17, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. Several of the prosecutor’s statements during summation were fair response to the summation and overall trial strategy of defense counsel and, accordingly, are within the latitude allowed to the People (see People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811 [2006]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824 [2002]). As to the remaining statements at issue, the jury is presumed to have followed the Court’s instructions to disregard such statements when making its determination (see People v Smart, 96 NY2d 793 [2001]). In any event, any errors were harmless (see People v Smart, 96 NY2d at 795; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.