From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 22, 1995
222 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 22, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on cross-examination of defendant and on summation. We disagree. The court sustained defense counsel's objections to the cited instances of prosecutorial misconduct on cross-examination of defendant, and defense counsel neither moved for a mistrial nor sought curative instructions, thereby failing to preserve any error for our review (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Bruce, 216 A.D.2d 913). Defense counsel failed to object to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct on summation, thereby failing to preserve those instances for our review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, we conclude that defendant was not denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see, People v Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821).

The contention that the verdicts are repugnant also is unpreserved for review because defense counsel failed to raise it before the jury was discharged (see, People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 746, rearg denied 57 N.Y.2d 674; People v Paz, 159 A.D.2d 987, 988, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 793). Additionally, the contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief that there were errors in the jury instructions is unpreserved. We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]). The record is insufficient for review of the contention that the jurors were not properly sequestered.

With respect to the verdict sheet, the inclusion of parenthetical language distinguishing among 10 counts of assault in the first degree, two counts of murder in the second degree and two counts of manslaughter was not error (see, People v Campbell, 170 A.D.2d 982, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 963). The verdict sheet at issue here, like that in Campbell, is very different from the verdict sheet rejected in People v Nimmons ( 72 N.Y.2d 830).


Summaries of

People v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 22, 1995
222 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Albert

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH ALBERT…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

People v. White

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal…

People v. Tolbert

The further contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct is likewise…