People v. Bunting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bunting

2017 NY Slip Op 176, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2017

Docket2013-10234

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 176 (People v. Bunting) 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. Bunting, 2017 NY Slip Op 176, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 28, 2013, as amended October 31, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*795 Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) for causing injury to a police officer by striking him with a car while trying to evade the police.

The defendant’s contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Read, 97 AD3d 702, 703 [2012]). In any event, some of the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor in summation were fair comment on the evidence, remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in summations, or were responsive to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]). While some of the challenged remarks, including those which denigrated the defense, were improper (see People v Irving, 130 AD3d 844 [2015]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392 [2006]; People v Pagan, 2 AD3d 879 [2003]), they were either sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial {see People v Singh, 138 AD3d 767, 768 [2016]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d at 886; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]; People v Rogers, 92 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Banyan, 60 AD3d 861 [2009]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to object to certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation (see People v Wragg, 26 NY3d 403, 411-412 [2015]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 28, 2013, as amended October 31, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*795 Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) for causing injury to a police officer by striking him with a car while trying to evade the police.

The defendant’s contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Read, 97 AD3d 702, 703 [2012]). In any event, some of the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor in summation were fair comment on the evidence, remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in summations, or were responsive to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]). While some of the challenged remarks, including those which denigrated the defense, were improper (see People v Irving, 130 AD3d 844 [2015]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392 [2006]; People v Pagan, 2 AD3d 879 [2003]), they were either sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial {see People v Singh, 138 AD3d 767, 768 [2016]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d at 886; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]; People v Rogers, 92 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Banyan, 60 AD3d 861 [2009]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to object to certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation (see People v Wragg, 26 NY3d 403, 411-412 [2015]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 176, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bunting-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack