From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Olsowske

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 4, 1998
247 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 4, 1998

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination of defendant and in summation. Because defendant objected to only one of the alleged instances of misconduct, he failed to preserve for our review his contention with respect to the remaining alleged instances ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Holden, 244 A.D.2d 961; People v. Jacobs, 225 A.D.2d 1088, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 880). In any event, although the prosecutor should not have forced defendant on cross-examination to characterize the prosecution witnesses as incorrect or liars, defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial ( see, People v. Edwards, 167 A.D.2d 864, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Eldridge, 151 A.D.2d 966, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 808). With respect to the alleged impropriety on summation to which defendant objected, the prosecutor's comment was a fair response to defense counsel's summation and "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; see, People v. Rivera, 158 A.D.2d 344, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 741; People v. Pittman, 158 A.D.2d 345, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 969).

We further conclude that County Court properly admitted, under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule, the testimony of a prosecution witness that the seven-year-old victim complained of the sexual assault shortly after it occurred ( see, People v. McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 16-18; People v. Aybinder, 215 A.D.2d 181, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 840; People v. Scott, 124 A.D.2d 974, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 717). Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that testimony, any error is harmless ( see, People v. Robinson, 218 A.D.2d 673, 673-674, affd 88 N.Y.2d 1001; People v. Roberts, 197 A.D.2d 867, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 901).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Sodomy, 1st Degree.)


Summaries of

People v. Olsowske

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 4, 1998
247 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Olsowske

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JASON J. OLSOWSKE…

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

Date published: Feb 4, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 518

Citing Cases

People v. Vitiello

Thus, his arguments in this regard were unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Robinson, A.D.2d [2d…

People v. Thibodeau

There is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a reasonable person to the…