From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 8, 1976
53 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

July 8, 1976


Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered March 28, 1974, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a class A-III felony. Defendant was charged with selling three bags of heroin to an undercover police officer. Upon his conviction after trial, he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a minimum term of four years and a maximum term of his natural life (Penal Law, § 70.00, subds 2, 3). On this appeal, defendant questions the constitutionality of the sentencing provision of the Penal Law as it applies to him for he was barely 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime and a first felony offender (People v Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, 119). He also argues that the summation of the Assistant District Attorney exceeded the bounds of fair comment and was prejudicial. We reject both contentions. As to the constitutional issue, we find People v Broadie (supra) decisive and controlling. Nor do we regard the comments of the prosecutor as constituting anything other than a response to issues raised by the defendant in his own summation. Even if they could be considered error, it was indeed harmless in view of the proof offered by the People (People v Crimmins, 38 N.Y.2d 407). Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Herlihy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 8, 1976
53 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

People v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JEROME MURPHY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 8, 1976

Citations

53 A.D.2d 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

People v. Libbett

Hancock, Jr., J.P., and Moule, J. (dissenting). In our opinion, the concededly improper closing remarks by…

People v. Buckmaster

Moreover, the defendant was actively involved in the transaction and was motivated by greed. The defendant…