Opinion
04-06-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Satnam SINGH, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered October 9, 2013, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Although a closing argument is a basic element of a defense in a criminal trial (see Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 858, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593), the trial court may limit summation to matters of evidence properly adduced at the trial (see People v. Smith, 16 N.Y.3d 786, 787–788, 920 N.Y.S.2d 284, 945 N.E.2d 477; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Romano, 301 A.D.2d 666, 667, 753 N.Y.S.2d 873). Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant's counsel from arguing on summation that the defendant did not understand the order of protection due to the lack of an interpreter in court when the order was issued, since there was no evidence presented at trial that the defendant did not understand English (see People v. Smith, 16 N.Y.3d at 787–788, 920 N.Y.S.2d 284, 945 N.E.2d 477; People v. Deir, 15 A.D.3d 198, 198, 789 N.Y.S.2d 49; People v. Romano, 301 A.D.2d at 667, 753 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Turner, 212 A.D.2d 818, 818, 623 N.Y.S.2d 271).
The defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's alleged improper comments during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant's summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d at 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Williams, 123 A.D.3d 1152, 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 499). To the extent that any remaining challenged remarks were improper, they were not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Williams, 123 A.D.3d at 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 499).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel's failure to object to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Torres, 72 A.D.3d 709, 709, 900 N.Y.S.2d 89).
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DICKERSON and BARROS, JJ., concur.