People v. Smalls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smalls

65 A.D.3d 708, 883 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedAugust 25, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 708 (People v. Smalls) 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. Smalls, 65 A.D.3d 708, 883 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 5, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that various remarks made by the prosecutor on summation were improper, and denied him his right to a fair trial. However, the defendant’s arguments regarding the prosecutor’s summation, to the extent the prosecutor allegedly appealed to jurors’ sympathies and inserted certain facts not in evidence, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Burke, 72 NY2d 833, 836 [1988]; People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071 [1979]; People v Moore, 50 AD3d 926, 927 [2008]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, or responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Turner, 214 AD2d 594 [1995]). Any error resulting from the remaining challenged remarks was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Ortiz, 46 AD3d 580, 581 [2007]; People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808, 809 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and Covello, 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 (Kron, J.), rendered June 5, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that various remarks made by the prosecutor on summation were improper, and denied him his right to a fair trial. However, the defendant’s arguments regarding the prosecutor’s summation, to the extent the prosecutor allegedly appealed to jurors’ sympathies and inserted certain facts not in evidence, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Burke, 72 NY2d 833, 836 [1988]; People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071 [1979]; People v Moore, 50 AD3d 926, 927 [2008]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, or responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Turner, 214 AD2d 594 [1995]). Any error resulting from the remaining challenged remarks was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Ortiz, 46 AD3d 580, 581 [2007]; People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808, 809 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 708, 883 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smalls-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack