People v. Forest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Forest

52 A.D.3d 733, 858 N.Y.S.2d 912

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered October 5, 2006, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[734] The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged improper summation remarks are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jackson, 41 AD3d 498, 499 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]; People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882, 883-884 [2005]; People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652, 653 [2003]). In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on, or reasonable inferences drawn from, the evidence, or were harmless (see People v Johnson, 3 AD3d 581, 582 [2004]; People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808, 809-810 [2003]; cf. People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]). Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered October 5, 2006, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[734] The defendant’s arguments regarding alleged improper summation remarks are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jackson, 41 AD3d 498, 499 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]; People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882, 883-884 [2005]; People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652, 653 [2003]). In any event, the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on, or reasonable inferences drawn from, the evidence, or were harmless (see People v Johnson, 3 AD3d 581, 582 [2004]; People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808, 809-810 [2003]; cf. People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]). Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

People v. Forest, 52 A.D.3d 733, 858 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

52 A.D.3d 733 (People v. Forest) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related