From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Larsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the course of trial, the prosecution elicited testimony from the arresting officer in which he repeated the contents of the description of the perpetrator as received over the police radio. On appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the admission of this testimony, which allegedly impermissibly bolstered the complaining witnesses' identification of the defendant (see, People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471), deprived him of a fair trial.

Although the police officer did not state that the defendant matched the description given by the radio transmission, the jury could have reasonably so inferred. Thus, we agree with the defendant that the police officer's testimony implicitly bolstered the identification testimony and that it was error to admit this testimony (see, People v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906). Nevertheless, we find the error harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; see also, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 970).

The defendant also attributes prejudicial error to certain of the prosecutor's remarks in summation. In one instance, the court sustained defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's remarks and gave the jury instructions which effectively cured any possible prejudice to the defendant. Defense counsel did not request further curative instructions or move for a mistrial. Thus, the defendant's claim of error with respect thereto is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953). Defense counsel failed to make any objection at all to another allegedly improper comment made by the prosecutor and hence this claim of error is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). Of the remaining allegedly prejudicial comments, we find that none exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).

We note that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Larsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Larsen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LANCE LARSEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 772

Citing Cases

People v. Thompson

However, the alleged errors are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant either failed to object…

People v. Spero

The hearing court's decision to credit the complainant's testimony was not clearly erroneous and is entitled…