People v. Dais

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dais

47 A.D.3d 421, 850 N.Y.S.2d 37

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 421 (People v. Dais) 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. Dais, 47 A.D.3d 421, 850 N.Y.S.2d 37 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered June 6, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s mistrial motion, made on the basis of the People’s summation. The challenged comments in which the prosecutor characterized defendant’s defense were responsive to defendant’s summation, which suggested that the undercover officer’s testimony was fabricated (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). With one exception, the prosecutor’s comments “did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]). Although the prosecutor should not have denigrated defense counsel by stating that counsel was “in fantasy land,” the trial court sustained the general objection to this statement and admonished the prosecutor [422]*422not to characterize the defendant’s arguments. No further relief is warranted on account of this comment. The prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the officers, and any references to their credibility were record-based and addressed to the jury’s common sense concerning motives or lack of motives to falsify (see People v Gonzalez, 298 AD2d 133, 133-134 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 614 [2003]). Furthermore, the court’s curative instructions during the summation sufficed to prevent any prejudice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s pro se claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them without merit. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered June 6, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s mistrial motion, made on the basis of the People’s summation. The challenged comments in which the prosecutor characterized defendant’s defense were responsive to defendant’s summation, which suggested that the undercover officer’s testimony was fabricated (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). With one exception, the prosecutor’s comments “did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]). Although the prosecutor should not have denigrated defense counsel by stating that counsel was “in fantasy land,” the trial court sustained the general objection to this statement and admonished the prosecutor [422]*422not to characterize the defendant’s arguments. No further relief is warranted on account of this comment. The prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the officers, and any references to their credibility were record-based and addressed to the jury’s common sense concerning motives or lack of motives to falsify (see People v Gonzalez, 298 AD2d 133, 133-134 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 614 [2003]). Furthermore, the court’s curative instructions during the summation sufficed to prevent any prejudice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s pro se claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them without merit. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 421, 850 N.Y.S.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dais-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack