People v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Singh

138 A.D.3d 767, 27 N.Y.S.3d 882

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

DecidedApril 6, 2016

Docket2013-09461

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 767 (People v. Singh) 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. Singh, 138 A.D.3d 767, 27 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered October 9, 2013, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although a closing argument is a basic element of a defense in a criminal trial (see Herring v New York, 422 US 853, 858 [1975]), the trial court may limit summation to matters of evidence properly adduced at the trial (see People v Smith, 16 NY3d 786, 787-788 [2011]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]; People v Romano, 301 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant’s counsel from arguing on summation that the defendant did not *768 understand the order of protection due to the lack of an interpreter in court when the order was issued, since there was no evidence presented at trial that the defendant did not understand English (see People v Smith, 16 NY3d at 787-788; People v Deir, 15 AD3d 198, 198 [2005]; People v Romano, 301 AD2d at 667; People v Turner, 212 AD2d 818, 818 [1995]).

The defendant’s arguments regarding the prosecutor’s alleged improper comments during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d at 109-110; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2014]). To the extent that any remaining challenged remarks were improper, they were not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Williams, 123 AD3d at 1152).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, defense counsel’s failure to object to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Torres, 72 AD3d 709, 709 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Barros, 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, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered October 9, 2013, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although a closing argument is a basic element of a defense in a criminal trial (see Herring v New York, 422 US 853, 858 [1975]), the trial court may limit summation to matters of evidence properly adduced at the trial (see People v Smith, 16 NY3d 786, 787-788 [2011]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]; People v Romano, 301 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). Here, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant’s counsel from arguing on summation that the defendant did not *768 understand the order of protection due to the lack of an interpreter in court when the order was issued, since there was no evidence presented at trial that the defendant did not understand English (see People v Smith, 16 NY3d at 787-788; People v Deir, 15 AD3d 198, 198 [2005]; People v Romano, 301 AD2d at 667; People v Turner, 212 AD2d 818, 818 [1995]).

The defendant’s arguments regarding the prosecutor’s alleged improper comments during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d at 109-110; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2014]). To the extent that any remaining challenged remarks were improper, they were not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Williams, 123 AD3d at 1152).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, defense counsel’s failure to object to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Torres, 72 AD3d 709, 709 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 767, 27 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-singh-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack