People v. Williams

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1977

Decision Date: 4/5/1979

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1977 (1979)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1979

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 92 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.83

N.Y.4

E.D.N.Y.2

S.D.N.Y.2

W.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2023Mercado-Ramos v. Noeth W.D.N.Y.
2017People v. Williams N.Y. App. Div.
2015People v. Duell N.Y. App. Div.
2014People v. Edwards N.Y. App. Div.
2013People v. Woodworth N.Y. App. Div.
2012People v. Smith N.Y. App. Div.
2011People v. Byrd N.Y. App. Div.
2011People v. Seabrooks N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Ketteles N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Smalls N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 3 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Joseph Williams, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Peter L. Yellin, Public Defender (James M. Zacearía of counsel), for appellant.
Patrick D. Monserrate, District Attorney (Michael R. Wright of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Though the prosecutor’s summation comment suggesting that the defendant may have engaged in other criminal conduct was prejudicial in nature, the Trial Judge’s lucid curative instructions to the jury, .following which neither any further objection nor any request for a mistrial was made, must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction.

The other prosecutorial summation statements to which defendant has drawn our attention went without objection at all. Consequently, they are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05, subd 2; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908). Had the summation excesses assumed due process proportions depriving defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial and had they been preserved, the harmless error doctrine, on which the Appellate Division relied, would, of course, have been inapplicable (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237-238; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.