People v. Utley

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Ayala

    165 A.D.2d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 12 times

    The challenged testimony was admissible either because the defense counsel had opened the door (see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; see also, People v Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780), or as proper rebuttal testimony (see, People v. Ramos, 139 A.D.2d 775). The trial court impartially and successfully sought to maintain the propriety, orderliness, decorum and expeditious course of the trial (see, People v. Utley, 130 A.D.2d 693), and it did not improperly marshal the evidence when it delivered its charge to the jury (see, CPL 300.10, [2]; see also, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665). The prosecutor's behavior during trial was also proper. His comments during summation constituted fair comments upon the evidence and did not exceed the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see, People v. James, 146 A.D.2d 712).