From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1993
196 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

September 27, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

In addition, the defendant claims that reversible error was committed by the prosecutor in his summation, when he improperly vouched for the credibility of the People's witnesses, and appealed to the financial interests of jurors as taxpayers. However, the remarks challenged on appeal were not objected to at trial, and thus this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks regarding the credibility of the police officers constituted a fair response to the defense counsel's characterization of the People's case (see, People v Brown, 187 A.D.2d 723), and any error by the prosecutor in making reference to taxpayers' dollars was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).

Further, the defendant's objection to the trial court's charge to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Jones, 173 A.D.2d 487). In any event, upon viewing the charge in its entirety, we find that it properly instructed the jury as to the correct principles to be applied in reaching its verdict (see, People v Jones, supra).

Moreover, the defendant's sentences were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Walston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1993
196 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Walston

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN WALSTON, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 27, 1993

Citations

196 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 152

Citing Cases

People v. Vaughan

In any event, most of the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and fair response to the…

People v. Vaughan

In any event, most of the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and fair response to the…