From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kennedy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It was improper for the prosecutor to refer to the defendant in his opening statement as a "denizen of the night, dark hat, unkept, unshaven, dirty, disgusting, vile monster" (see, People v. Brosnan, 32 N.Y.2d 254). Nevertheless, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v. Brosnan, supra).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objections to the prosecutor's summation (CPL 470.05). In any event, the majority of the prosecutor's statements were fair responses to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Sumpter, 192 A.D.2d 628), and any of the statements that were inappropriate were harmless error (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kennedy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Kennedy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEVIN KENNEDY…

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

Date published: Jun 19, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 547

Citing Cases

People v. Santana

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Although a particular comment that the prosecutor made during her…

People v. Nathan

We reject the defendant's contention that his conviction warrants reversal as a result of certain comments…