People v. Bunting
| Decision Date | 11 January 2017 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Leon BUNTING, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Jaclyn Epstein, Rhys Bortignon, Paul Carberry, Louis O'Neill, and Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and James C. Manning of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 28, 2013, as amended October 31, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[3] ) for causing injury to a police officer by striking him with a car while trying to evade the police.
The defendant's contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Read, 97 A.D.3d 702, 703, 947 N.Y.S.2d 614 ). In any event, some of the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor in summation were fair comment on the evidence, remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in summations, or were responsive to the summation of defense counsel (see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281 ; People v. Flowers, 102 A.D.3d 885, 886, 958 N.Y.S.2d 206 ). While some of the challenged remarks, including those which denigrated the defense, were improper (see People v. Irving, 130 A.D.3d 844, 15 N.Y.S.3d 62 ; People v. Brown, 26 A.D.3d 392, 812 N.Y.S.2d 561 ; People v. Pagan, 2 A.D.3d 879, 769 N.Y.S.2d 741 ), they were either sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court's instructions to the jury or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Singh, 138 A.D.3d 767, 768, 27 N.Y.S.3d 882 ; People v. Flowers, 102 A.D.3d at 886, 958 N.Y.S.2d 206 ; People v. Persaud, 98 A.D.3d 527, 529, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431 ; People v. Rogers, 92 A.D.3d 903, 939 N.Y.S.2d 496 ; People v. Banyan, 60 A.D.3d 861, 875 N.Y.S.2d 548 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel's failure to object to certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation (see People v. Wragg, 26 N.Y.3d 403, 411–412, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600, 44 N.E.3d 898 ; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Holmes
...by the Supreme Court's instructions to the jury (see People v. Elder, 152 A.D.3d 787, 789, 59 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 795, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; People v. Hamilton, 135 A.D.3d 958, 22 N.Y.S.3d 904 ). The defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the Sup......
-
People v. Katzman
...addressed by the Supreme Court's instructions to the jury (see People v. Elder, 152 A.D.3d at 789, 59 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 795, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; People v. Hamilton, 135 A.D.3d 958, 22 N.Y.S.3d 904 ). The defendant's claim that the Supreme Court, by the sentence......
-
People v. Cunningham
...of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, including those which, among other things, denigrated the defense (see People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 795, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; People v. Irving, 130 A.D.3d 844, 846, 15 N.Y.S.3d 62 ), and could only have been intended to evoke the jury's sympathy......
-
People v. Brooks, 2015-01912, Ind. No. 2228/12.
...Supreme Court's instructions to the jury or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 795, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 ; People v. Taylor, 120 A.D.3d 519, 521, 990 N.Y.S.2d 635 ). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ......
-
Summation
...and persuasive when attacking the testimony of a likable witness. §19:110 NEW YORK OBJECTIONS 19-20 SUMMATION CASES People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s remarks which denigrated the defense were improper, but were either suiciently addressed by th......
-
Summation
...Division held that the comments were not so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice warranting a new trial. People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s remarks which denigrated the defense were improper, but were either suiciently addressed by th......
-
Summation
...Division held that the comments were not so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice warranting a new trial. People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s remarks which denigrated the defense were improper, but were either sufficiently addressed by ......
-
Summation
...Division held that the comments were not so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice warranting a new trial. People v. Bunting, 146 A.D.3d 794, 43 N.Y.S.3d 910 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s remarks which denigrated the defense were improper, but were either suiciently addressed by th......