People v. Kinard, 96 A.D.3d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Kinard, 96 A.D.3d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Alphonso (nyappdiv, 2016-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alphonso
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by other improper remarks made by the prosecutor during her summation is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Katehis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that certain of the prosecutor’s summation comments deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Katehis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that certain of the prosecutor’s summation comments deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McArthur
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the right to a fair trial because the prosecutor commented in summation about his post-arrest silence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McArthur
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the right to a fair trial because the prosecutor commented in summation about his post-arrest silence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to any of the comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to any of the comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976, 977 [2012]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Forrest
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying counsel's request for a second CPL 730.30 examination of the defendant. " The court was entitled to give weight to the findings and conclusions of the defendant's most recent competency examination, which found him fit to proceed, and to its own observations of the defendant'" ( People v King , 171 AD3d 1217 , 1217, quoting People v Soto , 23 AD3d 586, 586 ; see People v Kinard , 96 AD3d 976, 977 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Gabriel Kinard
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 976
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered April 20, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (nine counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence in light of, inter alia, certain alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses. Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 116-117[*977] [2011]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Marquez, 82 AD3d 1123, 1123-1124 [2011]; People v Brookins, 184 AD2d 567 [1992]).

The defendant’s contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during his summation were improper and require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to any of the remarks at issue (see People v Lee, 34 AD3d 696 [2006]; People v Nieves, 2 AD3d 539, 540 [2003]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence or were responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993] ; People v Thompson, 81 AD3d 670, 672-673 [2011], lv granted 18 NY3d 998 [2012]; People v Nieves, 2 AD3d at 540; People v Spivey, 305 AD2d 135 [2003]). To the extent that any of the challenged remarks were improper, they constituted harmless error (see People v Thompson, 81 AD3d at 673; People v Franklin, 64 AD3d 614, 615 [2009]; People v Lee, 34 AD3d at 697).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court, which was entitled to rely on its own observations of and interactions with the defendant, providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for a competency examination (see CPL 730.30 [1]; People v Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]; People v Tejada, 36 AD3d 455, 456 [2007]; People v Jordan, 21 AD3d 1039 [2005]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.