AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SWEENEY, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that during the People's case, a detective gave improper bolstering testimony (see, People v. Cruz, 100 A.D.2d 882). However, this argument has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Armstrong, 122 A.D.2d 218, 219). In any event, any error in this regard must be considered harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

With respect to certain alleged improprieties in the prosecutor's summation, no objections were made thereto. Consequently, the defendant's arguments in this regard are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by any of the prosecutor's comments (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).

Finally, we are of the view that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. SWEENEY
(May 7, 1990)