People v. Jimenez

225 A.D.2d 413, 640 N.Y.2d 490, 640 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2727
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Jimenez. Read the opinion of the Court — 245 A.D.2d 304

Opinion

Defendant’s generalized motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case was not sufficient to preserve the Ryan issue for review (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10). The homicide and drug charges were properly joined because proof of the homicide was admissible as evidence in chief on the drug charge, given that the drugs were found in open view several feet from the [414]*414victim’s body (CPL 200.20 [2] [b]; see, People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 7; People v Khan, 174 AD2d 510, lv denied 78 NY2d 968). The trial court’s preclusion of untimely disclosed slides and diagrams of the victim, and any reference thereto, was an appropriate sanction under the circumstances (see, People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516, 520-521). The prosecutor’s comments during summation "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

People v. Jimenez, 225 A.D.2d 413, 640 N.Y.2d 490, 640 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 413 (People v. Jimenez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Galloway
430 N.E.2d 885 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. Lane
436 N.E.2d 456 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Kelly
467 N.E.2d 498 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Khan
174 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)