Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vincent Caruso, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1978-10-24
Citations: 45 N.Y.2d 881
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Caruso, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Caruso, Appellant.
Argued September 21, 1978;
decided October 24, 1978
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
J. Jeffrey Weisenfeld and Steven M. Jaeger for appellant.
Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Laura A. Brevetti of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Order of the Appellate Division affirmed. Despite the inexcusable character of the prosecutor's summation in stressing the role of defense counsel, without objective justification, the error does not call for reversal because it was without practical effect. The improprieties are sufficiently detailed in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division. A jury would hardly be moved by the rhetorical efforts of the young and inexperienced prosecutor. Her improper efforts were not such as to make the conduct of defense counsel, instead of that of defendant, the subject of the jury's inquiry.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.