Opinion
05-17-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Vance I. JACKSON, appellant.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel), for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered February 8, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the first degree (three counts), assault in the first degree (three counts), assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to the police. The defendant's statements, which were made at the police precinct, were spontaneous and not the result of interrogation or its functional equivalent. A detective merely introduced himself, an act that was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (see People v. Rivers, 56 N.Y.2d 476, 480, 453 N.Y.S.2d 156, 438 N.E.2d 862 ; People v. Ziegler, 78 A.D.3d 545, 911 N.Y.S.2d 331 ; People v. Jefferson, 71 A.D.3d 694, 894 N.Y.S.2d 907 ).
At the trial, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in qualifying an individual as an expert in the field of "primer examiner gunshot residue analysis" based on her academic training and experience (see People v. Battease, 124 A.D.2d 807, 809, 509 N.Y.S.2d 39 ; People v. Donaldson, 107 A.D.2d 758, 759, 484 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). The court also providently exercised its discretion in giving an expanded readback of the testimony of a police detective in order to provide a complete response to the jury's inquiry (see People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 ; People v. Grant, 127 A.D.3d 990, 990–991, 6 N.Y.S.3d 648 ; People v. Garcia, 56 A.D.3d 271, 272, 866 N.Y.S.2d 667 ; People v. Perez, 15 A.D.3d 284, 789 N.Y.S.2d 496 ; People v. Gil, 258 A.D.2d 595, 596, 685 N.Y.S.2d 746 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation is without merit. The prosecutor's statements, for the most part, constituted fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Fuhrtz, 115 A.D.3d 760, 981 N.Y.S.2d 611 ; People v. Birot, 99 A.D.3d 933, 952 N.Y.S.2d 293 ; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57 ), or were fair response to defense counsel's comments during summation (see People v. Adamo, 309 A.D.2d 808, 810, 765 N.Y.S.2d 651 ; People v. Clark, 222 A.D.2d 446, 447, 634 N.Y.S.2d 714 ), and any improper statements were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deny the defendant a fair trial (see People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85–86, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.