Opinion
2012-04-20
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leroy BROWN, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 21, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for defendant–appellant. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 21, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for defendant–appellant. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[b][v] ) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26[1] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation ( see People v. McEathron, 86 A.D.3d 915, 916, 926 N.Y.S.2d 249; People v. Lyon, 77 A.D.3d 1338, 1339, 908 N.Y.S.2d 291, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 954, 917 N.Y.S.2d 113, 942 N.E.2d 324). Specifically, defendant either failed to object to the alleged instances of misconduct ( see People v. Paul, 78 A.D.3d 1684, 1684–1685, 911 N.Y.S.2d 757, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 834, 921 N.Y.S.2d 199, 946 N.E.2d 187), or his objections thereto “were merely general objections without a specified basis” ( People v. Beggs, 19 A.D.3d 1150, 1151, 796 N.Y.S.2d 826, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 803, 803 N.Y.S.2d 32, 836 N.E.2d 1155; see People v. Parks, 66 A.D.3d 1429, 1430, 886 N.Y.S.2d 316, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 804, 899 N.Y.S.2d 138, 925 N.E.2d 942; see generally People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit. The majority of the comments in question were within “ ‘the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible’ ” during summations ( People v. Williams, 28 A.D.3d 1059, 1061, 813 N.Y.S.2d 606, affd. 8 N.Y.3d 854, 831 N.Y.S.2d 367, 863 N.E.2d 588, quoting People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885), and they were “either a fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence” ( McEathron, 86 A.D.3d at 916, 926 N.Y.S.2d 249 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor's comments were beyond those bounds, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” ( id.).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.