From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Poindexter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1988
138 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 7, 1988

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that a detective's testimony that he arrested the defendant based on his interviews with the People's key witnesses improperly bolstered the testimony of those witnesses (see, People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819). However, no objection to the detective's testimony was made. Therefore, the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; CPL 470.05). In any event, the claim is without merit. Nowhere in the detective's testimony is there a statement that any of the witnesses identified the defendant as the killer. Furthermore, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error was harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).

The defendant also argues that the prosecutor's reference in his summation, which was made the day after Mother's Day, to the loss suffered by the victim's children was an improper appeal to the jurors' emotions. While we agree that the prosecutor's remark departed from acceptable professional conduct (see, People v Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 586; People v. Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751), it did not deny the defendant a fair trial in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v. Barry, 125 A.D.2d 581, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 947). In any event, the court promptly admonished the jury not to let their sympathies enter into their deliberations.

Finally, we find no basis in the record to support the defendant's contentions that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence or that this court should reduce the sentence in the interests of justice (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Poindexter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1988
138 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Poindexter

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN POINDEXTER…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Veal

While the police officer did not reveal the answers given by the complainant, he testified over the…

People v. Polidore

Thus, unlike the testimony held to be improper in People vHolt ( 67 N.Y.2d 819, supra), the police testimony…