Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Moreno TRINIDAD, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered May 23, 2002, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the cumulative effect of misconduct by the prosecutor during direct examination of some of the People's witnesses and during summation deprived him of a fair trial and constituted reversible error. We disagree. Initially we note that several of the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Rivera, 19 A.D.3d 620, 796 N.Y.S.2d 545). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. Although the prosecutor, on more than one occasion during his summation, overstepped the bounds of proper advocacy, we conclude that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was no significant probability the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the errors not occurred and thus, he was not deprived thereby of a fair trial (see People v. Joseph, 20 A.D.3d 435, 797 N.Y.S.2d 310; People v. Oglesby, 7 A.D.3d 736, 776 N.Y.S.2d 838; People v. Williams, 13 A.D.3d 660, 786 N.Y.S.2d 357; People v. Johnson, 267 A.D.2d 403, 700 N.Y.S.2d 744).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: October 11, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)