From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 27, 1997

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation are for the most part unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070). In any event, most of the complained-of comments were either rhetorically permissible or fair comment on the evidence (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Furthermore, those remarks that were inappropriate were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

The trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge in connection with a confidential informant not called by the prosecution. Given the informant's minimal contact with the criminal transactions (see, People v DiBlasio, 150 A.D.2d 482), the defendant failed to demonstrate that the informant was knowledgeable about a material issue in the case (see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1997
239 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS ORTIZ, Appellant

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

Date published: May 27, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 611 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 997

Citing Cases

People v. Stevenson

05; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852, 853). In any event, while the…

Jones v. Stinson

On the same day that Jones was decided, the Appellate Division expressly stated in each of the following…