People v. Comer

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Comer

538 N.E.2d 349, 73 N.Y.2d 955, 540 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 310

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 538 N.E.2d 349 (People v. Comer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Comer, 538 N.E.2d 349, 73 N.Y.2d 955, 540 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 310 (N.Y. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant maintains that he is entitled to a new trial because of improper comments by the District Attorney during summation or, failing that, that the matter must be remitted to the Appellate Division so that it may exercise its factual review powers and determine whether the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

Defendant failed to preserve his claims of error on many of the District Attorney’s comments during summation and the court ruled correctly on those to which proper objections were taken. Moreover, to neutralize any prejudice resulting from the District Attorney’s statements the court gave cura *957 tive instructions in its charge to the jury. Defendant neither objected to these curative instructions nor requested additional instructions.

Insofar as defendant claims the Appellate Division failed to consider the weight of the evidence, it does not appear, as it did in Bleakley (69 NY2d, at 494-495, supra), that the court misunderstood its obligation to review the weight of evidence or that it failed to do so.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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