People v. Oreckinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oreckinto

253 A.D.2d 896, 678 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 896 (People v. Oreckinto) 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. Oreckinto, 253 A.D.2d 896, 678 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and unlawful possession of a radio device, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that reversible error took place due to the prosecutor’s comments during summation. Because the defendant’s objections were either too general or the defendant did not seek further curative instructions or a mistrial after the court sustained his objections, these claims of error are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819; People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538). In any event, the prosecutor’s statements were fair comment upon the evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom and fairly responded to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543; People v Shepherd, 176 AD2d 369, 370). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 (Tomei, J.), rendered May 20, 1996, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and unlawful possession of a radio device, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that reversible error took place due to the prosecutor’s comments during summation. Because the defendant’s objections were either too general or the defendant did not seek further curative instructions or a mistrial after the court sustained his objections, these claims of error are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819; People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538). In any event, the prosecutor’s statements were fair comment upon the evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom and fairly responded to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543; People v Shepherd, 176 AD2d 369, 370). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 896, 678 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oreckinto-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack