From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1996
226 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 30, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.).


Defense counsel's general objections during the prosecutor's summation did not alert the court to the comments defendant now claims deprived him of a fair trial. Accordingly, the claim is not preserved for appellate review ( People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the prosecutor's characterization of the defense as a conspiracy involving the police, the prosecutor, and the People's witnesses to frame defendant was fair response to defense counsel's summation suggesting that the police had embellished the description given to them by the complainant and that the identification testimony of the complainant and an eyewitness may have been the product of their discussions with the prosecutor's office. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1996
226 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD THOMAS…

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

Date published: Apr 30, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 624

Citing Cases

People v. Lewis

denied 23 N.Y.3d 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 258, 17 N.E.3d 513 ; People v. Head, 90 A.D.3d 1157, 1158, 933 N.Y.S.2d…

People v. Lewis

In the latter circumstance, the prosecution has the right to ask whether the witnesses are liars" (People v…