From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Narine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 3, 1999

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's argument that the prosecutor committed reversible error when he cross-examined the defendant about his failure to call 911 is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). In any event, the defense counsel opened the door to this issue, thereby allowing the prosecutor to ask questions on the subject ( see, People v. Chaitin, 61 N.Y.2d 683). Moreover, the questions were a proper vehicle by which the prosecutor could cast doubt upon the veracity of the defendant's exculpatory statements at trial ( see, People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 316-317).

The defendant's contention that the trial court, in imposing sentence, improperly considered his protestations of innocence after conviction, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Hurley, 75 N.Y.2d 887). In any event, the court properly imposed sentence based on the defendant's prior record.

The defendant's remaining contentions are also unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit.

Santucci, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Narine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Narine

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAMEL NARINE, Appellant

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

Date published: May 3, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 234

Citing Cases

People v. Watson

The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor's cross-examination of her, and comments on summation,…