From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2001-05692.

May 2, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 18, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh and Sonia Mikolic-Torreira of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Allison Pierre of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim that the prosecutor's allegedly improper comments during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to raise any objection to the comments at trial ( see People v. Anderson, 24 AD3d 460, lv denied 6 NY3d 831; People v. Williams, 303 AD2d 772). In any event, the challenged remarks either constituted fair comment on the evidence or were permissive responses to the defense counsel's summation ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110; People v. Ingram, 205 AD2d 801; People v. Johnson, 154 AD2d 618).


Summaries of

People v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Campbell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HOWARD CAMPBELL…

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

Date published: May 2, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3600
813 N.Y.S.2d 313

Citing Cases

People v. Flores

The testimony was relevant to the issue of the defendant's motive and was a necessary background to explain…

People v. Wright

However, this claim is without merit, as a successful motion to suppress would not have prevented the People…