People v. Coker
| Decision Date | 21 December 1987 |
| Citation | 135 A.D.2d 723,522 N.Y.S.2d 624 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Barry COKER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Alexander P. Schlinger, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and LAWRENCE, WEINSTEIN and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered February 27, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Several of the remarks of the prosecutor in his summation which are now being challenged on appeal were either not objected to at trial, or the objections were sustained by the trial court. The defense counsel did not request any curative instructions nor did he move for a mistrial. Therefore, with respect to those comments no error of law was preserved for our appellate review (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751, 484 N.Y.S.2d 114). The statements of the prosecutor which were objected to and as to which the objections were not sustained, did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 485 N.Y.S.2d 332, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 837, 493 N.Y.S.2d 128, 482 N.E.2d 924).
A review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant supports the trial court's denial of the defendant's request to have the jury instructed with respect to intoxication and certain lesser included offenses, since there was insufficient evidence of intoxication for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis (see, People v. Farnsworth, 65 N.Y.2d 734, 492 N.Y.S.2d 12, 481 N.E.2d 552; People v. Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849, 473 N.Y.S.2d 966, 462 N.E.2d 143; People v. Carter, 115 A.D.2d 551, 496 N.Y.S.2d 74).
Although the indictment did not charge the defendant with having acted in concert, the trial court properly permitted proof to be adduced at trial establishing that other individuals participated in the commission of the crimes and charged the jury on accessorial liability (see, People v. Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380, 493 N.Y.S.2d 898...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brooks
...proof that tended to establish that the defendant acted in concert with others in the commission of the burglary (see, People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723, 522 N.Y.S.2d 624; People v. Monahan, 114 A.D.2d 380, 493 N.Y.S.2d 898; Matter of Silverstro v. Kavanagh, 98 A.D.2d 833, 470 N.Y.S.2d 480; s......
-
People v. Riggins
...was eventually tried and convicted of the Evelyn murder, and his judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal (see, People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723, 522 N.Y.S.2d 624). We further note that there is nothing to indicate that the defendant's confession was coerced. He was not subjected to any......
-
People v. Mason
...during summation. We disagree. The defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723, 522 N.Y.S.2d 624). In any event, the prosecutor's statements constituted a fair response to the defense summation which impugned the credibili......
-
People v. Quick
...to object to these purportedly improper comments, his claim is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Coker, 135 A.D.2d 723, 522 N.Y.S.2d 624). In any event, we conclude that the challenged remarks were, for the most part, a fair response to the defense counsel's summa......