People v. Mendoza
This text of 304 A.D.2d 774 (People v. Mendoza) 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.
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]*775People 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
304 A.D.2d 774, 757 N.Y.S.2d 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-2003.