From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 1990
167 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 5, 1990

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the prosecutor did not engage in bolstering during her examination of two infant witnesses or subsequently, when she commented on the testimony of another witness during her summation. Further, the defendant failed to register objections to the majority of the prosecutor's summation comments which he now contends are improper and, therefore, has failed to preserve these claims for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Brown, 158 A.D.2d 461, 463; People v. Bailey, 155 A.D.2d 467, 468). The remaining comments complained of either constituted fair response to statements made by the defense counsel in her summation (see, People v. Hansen, 158 A.D.2d 542, 543) or did not deny the defendant a fair trial. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 1990
167 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RADAMES ORTIZ…

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

Date published: Nov 5, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

People v. Jones

We disagree. No objection was made to some of the challenged remarks, thereby rendering them unpreserved for…

People v. Jabbar Washington

Therefore, this argument is largely unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, we find…