From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 2003
301 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-08837

Argued January 7, 2003.

January 27, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 19, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Warren S. Landau of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jane S. Meyers of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

While the defendant is entitled by statute to have his counsel deliver a summation at the close of all the evidence (see CPL 260.30; Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853), the Supreme Court may limit summation to matters of evidence properly adduced at the trial (see People v. Ventura, 66 N.Y.2d 693; see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Middleton, 212 A.D.2d 809, 811; People v. Smith, 204 A.D.2d 140; People v. Barreau, 183 A.D.2d 904; People v. Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564; but see People v. Luis, 189 A.D.2d 657, 659-660 ; People v. Reina, 94 A.D.2d 727). Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant's counsel from arguing on summation that the psychiatric testimony established that he could not have formed the culpable mental state for intentional murder where the defense failed to give timely notice of its intent to offer psychiatric evidence in support of that theory at trial (see CPL 250.10[c]; People v. Almonor, 93 N.Y.2d 571, 580; People v. Yates, 290 A.D.2d 888; People v. Rivers, 281 A.D.2d 348; but see People v. Wilcox, 194 A.D.2d 820, 821 ).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ordering that the jury be sequestered notwithstanding the defendant's attempt to waive sequestration (see CPL 310.10; People v. Bello, 82 N.Y.2d 862; People v. Paul, 79 N.Y.2d 970; People v. Fernandez, 229 A.D.2d 447).

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 27, 2003
301 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Romano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ANTHONY ROMANO, appellant

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2003

Citations

301 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
753 N.Y.S.2d 873

Citing Cases

People v. Singh

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.Although a closing argument is a basic element of a defense in a…

People v. Singh

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Although a closing argument is a basic element of a defense in a…