People v. Blanco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blanco

283 A.D.2d 217, 724 N.Y.S.2d 836

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 217 (People v. Blanco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Blanco, 283 A.D.2d 217, 724 N.Y.S.2d 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered July 31, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s omission from its final charge of an instruction regarding the weight to be accorded a police officer’s testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal, particularly since the court had provided an appropriate instruction on the issue in its opening remarks.

Defendant has also failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions with respect to the prosecutor’s summation and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that while the prosecutor’s comment comparing defense counsel to a magician performing tricks was improper, it would not warrant reversal in the [218]*218context of the defense and prosecution summations as a whole and the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Shears, 184 AD2d 357, lv denied 80 NY2d 909). The other challenged remarks were fair comments on the evidence that were responsive to credibility arguments raised by the defense (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are uripreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered July 31, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s omission from its final charge of an instruction regarding the weight to be accorded a police officer’s testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal, particularly since the court had provided an appropriate instruction on the issue in its opening remarks.

Defendant has also failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions with respect to the prosecutor’s summation and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that while the prosecutor’s comment comparing defense counsel to a magician performing tricks was improper, it would not warrant reversal in the [218]*218context of the defense and prosecution summations as a whole and the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Shears, 184 AD2d 357, lv denied 80 NY2d 909). The other challenged remarks were fair comments on the evidence that were responsive to credibility arguments raised by the defense (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are uripreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 217, 724 N.Y.S.2d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blanco-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack