People v. Simmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simmons

6 A.D.3d 275, 774 N.Y.S.2d 695

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

DecidedApril 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 275 (People v. Simmons) 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. Simmons, 6 A.D.3d 275, 774 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered June 25, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, or by making a generalized objection, defendant did not preserve his present challenges to the prosecutor’s summation (see e.g. People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 491 n 18 [2002]) and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged remarks generally suggested reasonable inferences [276]*276from the evidence, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered June 25, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, or by making a generalized objection, defendant did not preserve his present challenges to the prosecutor’s summation (see e.g. People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 491 n 18 [2002]) and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged remarks generally suggested reasonable inferences [276]*276from the evidence, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 275, 774 N.Y.S.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simmons-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack