From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objection to the prosecutor's summation because he failed to seek curative instructions or move for a mistrial (see, People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Acevedo, 156 A.D.2d 569; People v Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723; People v. Richardson, 114 A.D.2d 980; People v. Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751). In any event, the prosecutor's comments made during summation "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399) or were a fair response to the defense counsel's summation and accurately reflected the testimony at the trial.

The defendant's contention that the sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Harris

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 589

Citing Cases

People v. Rodrigues

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that reversible error took place as a…

People v. Robbins

The defendant's contention concerning the prosecutor's remarks on summation is unpreserved for appellate…