From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nocera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1985
107 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

January 22, 1985

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

There was no compelling factor within the meaning of CPL 210.40 which would warrant dismissal of the indictment in the furtherance of justice (see, generally, People v. Viszokai, 99 A.D.2d 519). Inflammatory and otherwise improper comments were made by the prosecutor in summation. However, they were for the most part not excepted to and the proof of guilt is overwhelming. We find that there is no reasonable probability that these comments had an affect on the outcome of the trial ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Roseman, 78 A.D.2d 878, 879). Having registered no exception to the alibi charge delivered by the court, the defendant did not preserve any error therein for review as a matter of law ( People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022), and we are not inclined to review the matter in the interest of justice.

Defendant's remaining contention has been reviewed, and is without merit. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Nocera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1985
107 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Nocera

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES NOCERA…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1985

Citations

107 A.D.2d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Rascio

However, the record indicates that none of these issues was preserved for appellate review. In any event, the…

People v. Quick

05; People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723). In any event, we conclude that the challenged remarks were, for the…