People v. Donato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donato

176 A.D.2d 125, 574 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11494

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 125 (People v. Donato) 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. Donato, 176 A.D.2d 125, 574 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered March 9, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 4 Vi to 9 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

A police officer observed defendant hand two vials of crack to an individual holding a ten dollar bill. Upon arresting defendant, the officer also recovered eighteen vials of crack and $60 currency from defendant. The court properly admitted the $60 as evidence relevant to establish defendant’s intent to sell the two vials (People v Bell, 160 AD2d 477, lv denied 76 NY2d 784).

For the most part, defendant’s present argument that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct in summation is preserved only to the extent that defense counsel lodged a single general objection to the prosecutor’s characterization of the individual holding the ten dollar bill as "a criminal out in the street.” However, there was no misconduct since this remark constituted fair response to defense counsel’s summation (People v Trinidad, 59 NY2d 820, 821) and was based on a reasonable inference from the evidence (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered March 9, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 4 Vi to 9 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

A police officer observed defendant hand two vials of crack to an individual holding a ten dollar bill. Upon arresting defendant, the officer also recovered eighteen vials of crack and $60 currency from defendant. The court properly admitted the $60 as evidence relevant to establish defendant’s intent to sell the two vials (People v Bell, 160 AD2d 477, lv denied 76 NY2d 784).

For the most part, defendant’s present argument that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct in summation is preserved only to the extent that defense counsel lodged a single general objection to the prosecutor’s characterization of the individual holding the ten dollar bill as "a criminal out in the street.” However, there was no misconduct since this remark constituted fair response to defense counsel’s summation (People v Trinidad, 59 NY2d 820, 821) and was based on a reasonable inference from the evidence (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 125, 574 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donato-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack