Opinion
2012-01-31
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alvin PETERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jonathan M. Kirshbaum of counsel), and Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York (Stacey Trimmer of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jonathan M. Kirshbaum of counsel), and Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York (Stacey Trimmer of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered April 12, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.
The prosecutor's summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see generally People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572 [1997], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724 [1998]; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [1992], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977 [1993] ), and the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motions directed at the prosecutor's summation. Although defendant claims that the prosecutor engaged in improper bolstering or vouching for police witnesses, the remarks at issue were permissible responses to defense attacks on the officers' credibility ( see e.g. People v. Rivera, 223 A.D.2d 445, 637 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 884, 645 N.Y.S.2d 458, 668 N.E.2d 429 [1996], People v. Ortiz, 217 A.D.2d 425, 629 N.Y.S.2d 235 [1995], lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 799, 632 N.Y.S.2d 513, 656 N.E.2d 612 [1995] ). Although the prosecutor made some inappropriate attacks on a defense witness's credibility, there was nothing so egregious as to warrant reversal. Under the circumstances of the case, the fact that defendant was acquitted of all felony charges is a strong indication that the challenged remarks did not cause any prejudice.