PEOPLE v. CEPHUS (2004)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kim CEPHUS, appellant.

Decided: October 12, 2004

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, and PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Sarah J. Berger of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, Heather E. Abelson, and Taleah E. Jennings of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered June 17, 2002, convicting her of burglary in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's objections to the allegedly prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor in his summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were proper in light of the evidence adduced at trial and in response to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network