From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1993
199 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 27, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant's contentions that the trial court's interruption of his counsel's summation deprived him of a fair trial. For all but one of these instances, the trial court was merely sustaining the prosecutor's objections to remarks which were based purely on speculation and were not fair comments on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Cruz, 144 A.D.2d 478; People v Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564). We note that the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to the comment made by defense counsel that the defendant, by ringing a doorbell, gave notice of his presence in the building in question. This remark was a fair comment upon the evidence. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt this error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Canada, 157 A.D.2d 793).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including the issue raised in his pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1993
199 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. AUBREY ANDERSON…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 30

Citing Cases

People v. Bistonath

Further, the limits placed by the court upon the scope of defense counsel's cross-examination of several…