Opinion
July 12, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).
The defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover officer on April 22, 1987, in front of an apartment building located at 361 East 138th Street, Bronx County.
Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's cross-examination and summation has not been preserved as a matter of law. Counsel's objections to isolated questions were either general or on the grounds of form rather than substance and, therefore, did not preserve the issue for appellate review (People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324). Likewise, defendant did not object to the alleged impropriety of the prosecutor's summation and, thus, has failed to preserve these claims (see, People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 642).
In any event, the record reveals that the prosecutor's cross-examination did not suggest that the defendant had an established propensity to sell drugs, or seek to impugn the character of defendant as neglectful of his family. Rather, the prosecutor's inquiries on cross-examination and comments on summation were made in direct response to defense testimony seeking to portray the defendant as a hard-working individual with a family to support.
Finally, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error by the prosecutor, either on cross-examination or on summation, must be deemed harmless (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.