People v. Dorgan
| Decision Date | 17 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2005-08165. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 06119,42 A.D.3d 505,838 N.Y.S.2d 787 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANNA MARIE DORGAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the challenges she now raises to portions of the prosecutor's summation (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852 [1988]). In any event, for the most part, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, responsive to arguments and theories raised by the defense, or otherwise remained within the "broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; see People v Montalvo, 34 AD3d 600 [2006]; People v Woody, 9 AD3d 439, 440 [2004]; People v Ravenell, 307 AD2d 977, 978 [2003]). To the extent that some of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, reversal is not warranted in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Davis, 39 AD3d 873, 875 [2007]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-714 [1998]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925 [2007]; People v Montalvo, supra).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mullings
...trial” ( People v. Rudd, 62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 700; see People v. Banks, 74 A.D.3d at 1215, 905 N.Y.S.2d 627; People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787). “The determination of whether to grant or deny youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and ......
-
People v. Jenkins
...permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the summation of defense counsel or the codefendant's counsel ( see People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57; People v. Clark, 222 A.D.2d 446, 447, 634 N.Y.S.2d 714; Peop......
-
People v. Bowen–Allen
...fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the summation of defense counsel ( see People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787;People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57;People v. Clark, 222 A.D.2d 446, 447, 634 N.Y.S.2d 714;People......
-
People v. Matthews
...of the challenged remarks "remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" ( People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57 ) or were "fair commen......