From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ingram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1999
258 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 8, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the court's Molineux ruling during his redirect examination of the victim's sister is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Rizzo, 175 A.D.2d 221). Certain of the defendant's objections to the prosecutor's summation comments are also unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). Furthermore, several of the prosecutor's comments were fair responses to the defense counsel's summation ( see, People v. Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500).

Although portions of the prosecutor's examination of the victim's sister and some of his summation comments were improper, any error with respect thereto was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ingram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 8, 1999
258 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Ingram

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMEL RAHEEM INGRAM…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 264

Citing Cases

People v. Pointer, Frank

Accordingly, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v.…

People v. Laverpool

Moreover, the Supreme Court's limiting instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice ( see People v…