People v. O'Diah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Diah

68 A.D.3d 788, 888 N.Y.2d 896

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 788 (People v. O'Diah) 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. O'Diah, 68 A.D.3d 788, 888 N.Y.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to seek a curative instruction or move for a mistrial with respect to the one challenged comment to which he objected, and he failed to object to the other challenged comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Gregory, 55 AD3d 752 [2008]; People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652 [2003]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, responsive to the defense counsel’s summation, or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-400 [1981]; People v Nieves, 2 AD3d 539, 540 [2003]; People v Holguin, 284 AD2d 343 [2001]; People v Cariola, 276 AD2d 800 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to seek a curative instruction or move for a mistrial with respect to the one challenged comment to which he objected, and he failed to object to the other challenged comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Gregory, 55 AD3d 752 [2008]; People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652 [2003]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, responsive to the defense counsel’s summation, or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-400 [1981]; People v Nieves, 2 AD3d 539, 540 [2003]; People v Holguin, 284 AD2d 343 [2001]; People v Cariola, 276 AD2d 800 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 788, 888 N.Y.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-odiah-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack