Opinion
April 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.).
Complainant was shot by defendant following an altercation on the stoop of their building in which defendant argued that members of complainant's family were blocking his ingress and egress. Defendant in a written statement admitted the shooting but did not refer to the fact that he had been drinking on the night of the incident.
Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly suggested in summation that his defense of intoxication had been concocted by defendant and his lawyer and that the prosecutor further deliberately misstated the evidence of intoxication to bolster the claim of fabrication. However, only one of the comments was objected to by means of an unelaborated general objection which was insufficient to alert the court to the claim of prosecutorial misconduct; thus these arguments were not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Berrios, 71 N.Y.2d 905) and we decline to reach it. Were we to reach it, a review of the record shows that the summation was a fair response to arguments raised in the defense summation. A prosecutor is permitted wide latitude in commenting upon the evidence presented and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396.)
Defendant also contends that his sentence was excessive. However, the sentence imposed was less than the maximum permitted, and the court properly considered defendant's age and background as well as the seriousness of the injuries caused to complainant, and we do not find the sentence excessive. (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305.)
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.