People v. Ortiz-Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortiz-Castro

12 A.D.3d 1071, 784 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13821

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 1071 (People v. Ortiz-Castro) 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. Ortiz-Castro, 12 A.D.3d 1071, 784 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered December 7, 1995. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03), defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. “By failing to object to most of the statements by the prosecutor that are now alleged to constitute misconduct, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions with respect to those statements” (People v Hess, 234 AD2d 925, 925 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 1011 [1997]; see People v Smyth, 233 AD2d 746, 749 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1015 [1997]), nor is reversal warranted based on the alleged instances of misconduct that are preserved for our review. We note our strong disapproval of the misconduct of the prosecutor in summation of playing on the sympathies and fears of the jury, in denigrating the defense, and in expressing his personal opinion of the credibility of the witnesses. Nonetheless, the misconduct was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial (see generally People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77-78 [1984], lv denied 63 NY2d 711 [1984]), particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see generally People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255, 259 [1985]; People v Doran, 10 AD3d 425 [2004]). Finally, viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered December 7, 1995. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03), defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. “By failing to object to most of the statements by the prosecutor that are now alleged to constitute misconduct, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions with respect to those statements” (People v Hess, 234 AD2d 925, 925 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 1011 [1997]; see People v Smyth, 233 AD2d 746, 749 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1015 [1997]), nor is reversal warranted based on the alleged instances of misconduct that are preserved for our review. We note our strong disapproval of the misconduct of the prosecutor in summation of playing on the sympathies and fears of the jury, in denigrating the defense, and in expressing his personal opinion of the credibility of the witnesses. Nonetheless, the misconduct was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial (see generally People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77-78 [1984], lv denied 63 NY2d 711 [1984]), particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see generally People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255, 259 [1985]; People v Doran, 10 AD3d 425 [2004]). Finally, viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 1071, 784 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortiz-castro-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack