From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bolden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 8, 1995
216 A.D.2d 45 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 8, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).


Defendant's claim that the prosecutor made prejudicial remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the prosecutor's comment that the police witnesses had "no motive to lie" was a fair response to the defense summation suggesting that the police made bogus drug arrests to relieve "pressure" from the community, and, as such, did not constitute impermissible vouching (People v. Robertson, 192 A.D.2d 447, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 725; see, People v. Emphram, 179 A.D.2d 402, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 947). We would also find that the prosecutor's repeated characterization of defendant as a liar was improper ( People v. Nevedo, 202 A.D.2d 183, 185), but harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( People v Hampton, 211 A.D.2d 464, 465).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Bolden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 8, 1995
216 A.D.2d 45 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Bolden

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTWAN BOLDEN…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 45 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 660

Citing Cases

People v. Gurdon

Here, the prosecutor's comment that the complainant should be believed because she had been interviewed by…

People v. Gurdon

Here, the prosecutor's comment that the complainant should be believed because she had been interviewed by…