Opinion
May 11, 1990
Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Reilly, Jr., J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Denman, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. memorandum: Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree arising from separate transactions on August 4 and 24, 1985. There is no merit to defendant's contention that those convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The jury could have inferred from the circumstances of defendant's possession that he knew the bags contained a controlled substance (see, People v Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285, cert denied 405 U.S. 1041).
Defendant did not object to the prosecutor's comments on summation and thus the issue of prosecutorial misconduct has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Jordan, 148 A.D.2d 921). Defendant correctly notes that several comments by the prosecutor were improper. The trial court, however, gave detailed jury instructions which cured most of the improprieties, and the remaining comments were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Plant, 138 A.D.2d 968, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1031; People v. Broadus, 129 A.D.2d 997, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 643). Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretionary review power (see, CPL 470.15).
Finally, we conclude that imposition of concurrent terms of imprisonment of 6 to 18 years was not harsh or excessive.