People v. Carmichael

• Decision Date: 06 March 2019
• Docket Number: 2017–00227,Ind.No. 1390/16
• Citation: 95 N.Y.S.3d 271,170 A.D.3d 742
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darkel CARMICHAEL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

170 A.D.3d 742

95 N.Y.S.3d 271

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Darkel CARMICHAEL, Appellant.

2017–00227

Ind.No. 1390/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—November 2, 2018

March 6, 2019

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Anders Nelson and Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John La Tella, J.), rendered December 15, 2016, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts), criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), attempted assault in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child (four counts), aggravated harassment in the second degree, and stalking in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

During the prosecution's opening statement, the prosecutor referenced certain recorded telephone calls she intended to introduce, but during the trial, the prosecutor was unable to lay a foundation for the admission of those telephone calls into evidence. The defendant's contention that these comments deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, "absent bad faith or undue prejudice," unfulfilled promises in a prosecutor's opening statement will not entitle a defendant to a new trial ( People v. De Tore, 34 N.Y.2d 199, 207, 356 N.Y.S.2d 598, 313 N.E.2d 61 ; see People v. Bramble, 81 A.D.3d 968, 968–969, 917 N.Y.S.2d 297 People v. McEaddy, 41 A.D.3d 877, 880, 838 N.Y.S.2d 218 ). Here, there is no reason to believe that the prosecutor acted in bad faith and, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the unfulfilled representations (see People v. McKnight, 72 A.D.3d 846, 846–847, 898 N.Y.S.2d 462, affd 16 N.Y.3d 43, 917 N.Y.S.2d 594, 942 N.E.2d 1019 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because of certain remarks the prosecutor made during summation is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, most of the challenged comments constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. Herb, 110 A.D.3d 829, 831, 972 N.Y.S.2d 668 ), were responsive to arguments and theories presented in defense counsel's summation (see People v. Gross, 88 A.D.3d 905, 906, 931 N.Y.S.2d 129 ), or were permissible rhetorical comment (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d at 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. Herb, 110 A.D.3d at 831, 972 N.Y.S.2d 668 ). To the extent that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885 ). Moreover, the cumulative effect of the alleged errors was harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).

The defendant's contention regarding the duration of certain final orders of protection entered at the time of sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise this contention at sentencing or move...