People v. Eastman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eastman

239 A.D.2d 276, 658 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5427

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

DecidedMay 22, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 276 (People v. Eastman) 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. Eastman, 239 A.D.2d 276, 658 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.), rendered April 24, 1995, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim concerning the prosecutor’s remarks during summation is unpreserved, since defendant offered only an unelaborated, one-word objection to the prosecutor’s comment [277]*277(see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, the challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation fairly commented on the evidence in response to defense arguments (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109). Further, defendant’s contention that the arresting officer improperly testified that after defendant’s arrest, the undercover officer "did a drive-by ID”, was not preserved by his untimely mistrial motion (People v Gonzalez, 235 AD2d 225, lv denied 89 NY2d 985), and is, in any event, without merit. "This Court has repeatedly held that such testimony is not bolstering” (People v Hendricks, 223 AD2d 409, 410, lv denied 88 NY2d 966). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander Hunter, J.), rendered April 24, 1995, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim concerning the prosecutor’s remarks during summation is unpreserved, since defendant offered only an unelaborated, one-word objection to the prosecutor’s comment [277]*277(see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641). In any event, the challenged portion of the prosecutor’s summation fairly commented on the evidence in response to defense arguments (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109). Further, defendant’s contention that the arresting officer improperly testified that after defendant’s arrest, the undercover officer "did a drive-by ID”, was not preserved by his untimely mistrial motion (People v Gonzalez, 235 AD2d 225, lv denied 89 NY2d 985), and is, in any event, without merit. "This Court has repeatedly held that such testimony is not bolstering” (People v Hendricks, 223 AD2d 409, 410, lv denied 88 NY2d 966). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 276, 658 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eastman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack