People v. Pacheco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pacheco

192 A.D.2d 319, 595 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 319 (People v. Pacheco) 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. Pacheco, 192 A.D.2d 319, 595 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), rendered June 17, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of AVz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to object to the summation comments of the prosecutor that he now claims were improper and prejudicial, and thus failed to preserve his claims for appellate review as a matter of law. Were we to review in the interest of justice, we would find that the prosecutor’s summation constituted appropriate response to the defense summation, and fair comment on the evidence, presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment acceptable in closing argument.

Similarly unpreserved is defendant’s claim that the trial court’s response to a jury note was improper and prejudicial. Were we to review that claim in the interest of justice, we would find it meritless. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), rendered June 17, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of AVz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to object to the summation comments of the prosecutor that he now claims were improper and prejudicial, and thus failed to preserve his claims for appellate review as a matter of law. Were we to review in the interest of justice, we would find that the prosecutor’s summation constituted appropriate response to the defense summation, and fair comment on the evidence, presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment acceptable in closing argument.

Similarly unpreserved is defendant’s claim that the trial court’s response to a jury note was improper and prejudicial. Were we to review that claim in the interest of justice, we would find it meritless. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 319, 595 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pacheco-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack