People v. Henry

59 A.D.3d 461, 872 N.Y.S.2d 536
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 461 (People v. Henry) 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. Henry, 59 A.D.3d 461, 872 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered January 4, 2006, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (eight counts) and rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crime of rape in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a [462]*462reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dorsette, 47 AD3d 728 [2008]). In any event, the remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. A review of the challenged comments reveals that they were either fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial or fair response to the defense summation (see People v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185 [2007]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Torres
72 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.3d 461, 872 N.Y.S.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henry-nyappdiv-2009.