People v. Beggs
| Decision Date | 10 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | KA 05-00291. |
| Citation | 796 N.Y.S.2d 826,2005 NY Slip Op 04895,19 A.D.3d 1150 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MARK E. BEGGS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered May 5, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and one count of endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). On appeal, defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of numerous prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation. However, defendant failed to preserve for our review most of the comments he now asserts were prejudicial and improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Furthermore, the two objections that defendant raised at the appropriate time were merely general objections without a specified basis. A general objection to a prosecutor's comment at summation without specification of the basis for the objection is insufficient to preserve the issue (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999]; see generally People v Brazeau, 304 AD2d 254, 257 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 579 [2003]). In any event, the comments about which defendant now complains "must be evaluated in light of the defense [counsel's] summation" (People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; see People v Dunbar, 213 AD2d 1000 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 972 [1995]). In his summation, defense counsel commented on the credibility of the victim and her mother, and the comments of the prosecutor to which defense counsel raised an objection were directly related to those issues. Thus, the comments of the prosecutor were a fair response to the observations of defense counsel on summation and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v West, 4 AD3d 791, 792 [2004]; cf. People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]; People v Clark, 195 AD2d 988, 990-991 [1993]).
We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The testimony of the young victim established all the elements of the crimes charged. "Great deference is to be accorded to the [jury's] resolution of credibility issues based upon its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...of the video recording, and thus his contention with respect to those comments is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Beggs, 19 A.D.3d 1150, 1151, 796 N.Y.S.2d 826, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 803, 803 N.Y.S.2d 32, 836 N.E.2d 1155). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his cont......
-
McManus v. Vann
...defense summations and fair comment based upon the evidence.") (citing People v. Overlee, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572 (1997)); People v. Beggs, 796 N.Y.S.2d 826, 828 (4th Dep't 2005) ("In his summation, defense counsel commented on the credibility of the victim and her mother, and the comments of the ......
-
People v. Solomon
...of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during the prosecutor's opening and closing statements ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Beggs, 19 A.D.3d 1150, 1151, 796 N.Y.S.2d 826, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 803, 803 N.Y.S.2d 32, 836 N.E.2d 1155). We decline to exercise our power to review those conte......
-
People v. Mencel
...defendant objected with "a specification of the basis for the objection" sufficient to preserve the issue for our review (People v Beggs, 19 A.D.3d 1150, 1151 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 803 [2005]), the court sustained the objection and issued a curative instruction. Inasmuch as "[......