People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Lawson (nyappdiv, 2005-10-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lawson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s marshaling of the identification evidence in its jury charge deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review since he raised no objection to the charge on that ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Bastien, 180 AD2d 691, 692 [1992]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 247 [1989]; People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701, 702 [1988]; see also People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harrison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the court improperly marshaled evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bacchus, 183 AD2d 720 [1992]; People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701, 702 [1988]), and in any event, is without merit (see CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Turton, 221 AD2d 671 [1995]; People v Montana, 192 AD2d 623 [1993]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bastien
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · confidence medium
The trial was short, there were few witnesses, and the defendant’s position was made clear to the jury during defense counsel’s summation (see, People v McDonald, supra, at 702).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · confidence medium
The trial court’s charge to the jury did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and, therefore, reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (see, People v McDonald, supra, at 702; People v Ogle, 142 AD2d 608, 609 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Nieves
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
The defendant’s position was made clear to the jury in the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Gray, 144 AD2d 483 ) and the court advised the jury that they were "the sole and exclusive judges of the facts” (People v Scales, supra, at 578 ; see, People v McDonald, 144 AD2d 701, 702 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David McDonald
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 28, 1988.
144 A.D.2d 701
1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12402
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from[*702] a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered August 27, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the manner in which the court marshaled the evidence in its charge is not preserved for appellate review since no objection was made to the charge on that ground (see, People v West, 56 NY2d 662; People v Brensic, 119 AD2d 281, revd on other grounds 70 NY2d 9; People v Earley, 118 AD2d 868). In any event, we do not find the court’s failure to refer to the defendant’s evidence to be an error since the court need not explain all the contentions of the parties or the inconsistencies in the evidence (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665). The trial was short, the issues were simple, there were few witnesses and the defendant’s position was made clear to the jury in the defense counsel’s summation (see, e.g., People v Patterson, 121 AD2d 406, lv denied 68 NY2d 759; People v McCright, 107 AD2d 766). Furthermore, the court advised the jurors that their recollection of the evidence was controlling.

Only one of the prosecutor’s summation remarks now complained of on appeal was preserved for review by a timely objection (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Hayden, 128 AD2d 726, lv denied 69 NY2d 950). This comment did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Yaghnam, 135 AD2d 763). As to those remarks which were not preserved for review, we find that they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the defense counsel’s summation, and that a reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted. Lawrence, J. P., Spatt, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.