People v. Halm
| Decision Date | 23 February 1993 |
| Citation | 595 N.Y.S.2d 380,81 N.Y.2d 819,611 N.E.2d 281 |
| Parties | , 611 N.E.2d 281 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry HALM, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 180 A.D.2d 841, 579 N.Y.S.2d 765, should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted on five counts of sodomy in the third degree and three counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The convictions followed testimony by four teenage boys that defendant had shown them pornographic films in his home, masturbated before them, solicited sex from them and engaged two of them in acts of sodomy. He was sentenced by Chemung County Court to five consecutive prison terms of 1 1/3 to 4 years.
Defendant has failed to show that remarks by the prosecutor during summation had "a decided tendency to prejudice the jury" (People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564). The prosecutor's reference to defendant's failure to testify was followed by a curative instruction, and his portrayal of the complainants in the closing statement, when viewed in the context of the entire trial, fell within the latitude afforded to attorneys in advocating their cause (id., at 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564, quoting Williams v. Brooklyn El. R.R. Co., 126 N.Y. 96, 102, 26 N.E. 1048). Moreover, the prosecutor's closing statement must be evaluated in light of the defense summation, which put into issue the complainants' character and credibility and justified the People's response.
Similarly, defendant's claim that community sentiment and religious beliefs were inappropriately considered by the Judge in imposing sentence is not borne out by the record. The sentencing statement, read in context, was unobjectionable (compare, United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740-741).
Finally, we find no merit to defendant's contention that the age of consent established by the Legislature is unconstitutional.
Defendant's other arguments are without merit.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Annucci
...the prosecutor's comment responded to defense counsel's summation, which is proper under New York law. See People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281, 282 (1993) ("[T]he prosecutor's closing statement must be evaluated in light of the defense summation, which put into i......
-
People v. Gillis
...defendant has failed to show that the prosecutor's remarks had " 'a decided tendency to prejudice the jury' " (People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281, quoting People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d We shall not disturb the sentence i......
-
People v. McCray
...for example, on the prosecution witnesses' credibility may justify a People's response in kind (see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281 [1993] ). This is so where, as here, the trial “turns ... on issues of credibility” and the outcome “depends for the testi......
-
People v. Thibeault
...lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 789, 801 N.Y.S.2d 810, 835 N.E.2d 670 [2005]; People v. Halm, 180 A.D.2d 841, 843, 579 N.Y.S.2d 765 [1992], affd. 81 N.Y.2d 819, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281 [1993] ) and did not, under all of the circumstances, constitute reversible error ( see People v. Crimmins, 3......