Opinion
2013-04-23
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alonzo ENGLAND, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Mitchell J. Briskey of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Mitchell J. Briskey of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Britta Gilmore of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), rendered June 23, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and aggravated criminal contempt, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the victim's background and the fact that she had given conflicting versions of a prior incident between her and defendant.
Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 [2006] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the challenged remarks generally constituted permissible responses to defense arguments, and that there was nothing sufficiently egregious to warrant reversal ( see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572 [1st Dept. 1997], lv. denied91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724 [1998];People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [1st Dept. 1992], lv. denied81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977 [1993] ). To the extent defendant's postsummations mistrial motion could be viewed as preserving any issues ( but see Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89), we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion.