People v. Carter

36 A.D.3d 624, 831 N.Y.S.2d 87
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 9, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 624 (People v. Carter) 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. Carter, 36 A.D.3d 624, 831 N.Y.S.2d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered January 25, 2005, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly declined to submit petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree as lesser-included offenses, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant committed the lesser offenses without having committed the greater offenses (see CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]; People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364, 369, 371, 373 [1980]; People v Miller, 156 AD2d 265 [1989]).

Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s remarks on summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the remarks, made only a general objection, failed to request curative instructions, or moved belatedly for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 27 AD3d 673 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 796 [2006]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542 [2004]). In any event, the challenged remarks, for the most part, were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Rhodes, 11 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; People v Jones, 294 AD2d 517, 517-518 [2002]). To the extent that the prosecutor may have exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, any error was harmless. Crane, J.P, Skelos, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Damato
79 A.D.3d 1060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Dunham
78 A.D.3d 1073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Ariza
77 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Roque
74 A.D.3d 1246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Torres
72 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Martinez
69 A.D.3d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Taylor
65 A.D.3d 1169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Charles
57 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Wright
54 A.D.3d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Cox
54 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Williams
50 A.D.3d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Dick
48 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Marshall
43 A.D.3d 1184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 A.D.3d 624, 831 N.Y.S.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carter-nyappdiv-2007.