People v. Ferrer

245 A.D.2d 569, 666 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 569 (People v. Ferrer) 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. Ferrer, 245 A.D.2d 569, 666 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered November 16, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that prosecutorial misconduct denied him his right to a fair trial is without merit. Contrary [570]*570to the defendant’s contentions, the comments made by the prosecutor during summation were appropriate. It is the right of counsel during summation to comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury have to decide (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109). The prosecutor’s comments referred to matters in evidence, or which were fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, supra, at 109-110). The prosecutor’s remarks constituted a permissible response to the defendant’s characterization of a buy and bust operation and the performance of the police officers involved, and did not constitute improper bolstering.

The prosecutor did not attempt to shift or limit the People’s burden of proof. In any event, as the court correctly conveyed the burden of proof requirements to the jury, the jury is presumed to have followed the instructions as given (see, People v McCray, 167 AD2d 304, 305). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Guevara
96 A.D.3d 781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Bernardez
85 A.D.3d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Patten
43 A.D.3d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Meyers
13 A.D.3d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Doe
11 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Morris
293 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Evans
291 A.D.2d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Sultan
257 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Corrado
256 A.D.2d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Jian Guo Xia
255 A.D.2d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 569, 666 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ferrer-nyappdiv-1997.