People v. Mendoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza

304 A.D.2d 774, 757 N.Y.S.2d 780

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered June 14, 2001, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during cross-examination and summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 491 n 18 [2002]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885 [1991]; People v Smith, 298 AD2d 607 [2002]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments were within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, were a fair response to the defense counsel’s direct examination and summation (see [775] People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]; People v Clemmings, 300 AD2d 672 [2002]; People v Valdes, 291 AD2d 513, 514 [2002]; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 872 [1995]), or were harmless under the circumstances of this case. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Mastro, 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 (D’Emic, J.), rendered June 14, 2001, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during cross-examination and summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 491 n 18 [2002]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885 [1991]; People v Smith, 298 AD2d 607 [2002]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments were within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, were a fair response to the defense counsel’s direct examination and summation (see [775] People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]; People v Clemmings, 300 AD2d 672 [2002]; People v Valdes, 291 AD2d 513, 514 [2002]; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 872 [1995]), or were harmless under the circumstances of this case. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Mastro, JJ., concur.

People v. Mendoza, 304 A.D.2d 774, 757 N.Y.S.2d 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 774 (People v. Mendoza) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related