People v. Elliot
| Decision Date | 26 June 1995 |
| Citation | 628 N.Y.S.2d 761,216 A.D.2d 576 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James ELLIOT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Eve Kessler, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Robin A. Forshaw and Emil Bricker, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and JOY, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered February 1, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
On the morning of May 5, 1993, the defendant and an unapprehended accomplice robbed the complainant, a New York City cab driver. During the course of the robbery, the defendant held a gun to the complainant's neck, but the complainant pushed the gun away, and a struggle ensued. When the defendant fled the cab, the complainant pursued him, and, with the assistance of another cab driver, ultimately succeeded in apprehending the defendant and subduing him.
On appeal, the defendant contends that reversal is warranted because of the prosecutor's summation, which allegedly vouched for the complainant's credibility while denigrating the defense and appealing to the jury's sense of sympathy. We note, however, that the defendant failed to object to several of the remarks now claimed to have been improper, and his arguments regarding these comments are thus unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]. Furthermore, the challenged comments were, for the most part, either fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial, or a fair response to the defense summation, which extensively attacked the complainant's credibility by theorizing that the defendant and his companion had refused to pay their fare for the cab ride, and that the complainant overreacted by physically attacking the defendant, and then fabricated a robbery story to cover up his wrongful actions (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Rosa, 204 A.D.2d 744, 614 N.Y.S.2d 259; People v. Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, 607 N.Y.S.2d 413, affd. 85 N.Y.2d 872, 626 N.Y.S.2d 51, 649 N.E.2d 1195). Any comments which were improper were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
We further find that the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Banks
...story (see, People v. Burgos, 186 A.D.2d 578, 588 N.Y.S.2d 801; People v. Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678, 515 N.Y.S.2d 604; People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576, 628 N.Y.S.2d 761). Moreover, these remarks were proper since the issue of credibility was central to the trial (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N......
-
People v. Hernandez
...470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576, 628 N.Y.S.2d 761; People v. Bartolomeo, 126 A.D.2d 375, 513 N.Y.S.2d THOMPSON, J.P., and JOY, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur. ...
-
People v. Melendez
...made by the prosecutor during his summation regarding the defendant's alibi defense were improper (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576, 628 N.Y.S.2d 761). In any event, the remarks in question amounted to fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial, were in response to th......
- People v. Colon