People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 27 December 1993 |
| Citation | 605 N.Y.S.2d 409,199 A.D.2d 535 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Judith Stern, of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Moira E. Casey, of counsel; Leah Leiser, on the brief), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BALLETTA, O'BRIEN and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), both rendered December 18, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 5154/91, upon a jury verdict, and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 8516/91, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the crack-cocaine admitted into evidence at the trial on Indictment No. 5154/91. Initially, we note that the issue is unpreserved for appellate review since the evidence was admitted without objection from the defendant and the defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal did not specify this ground as a basis for dismissal (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, since the alleged gap in the chain of custody occurred after the substance was analyzed, there could be no prejudicial alteration (see, People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310). Any deficiencies in the chain of custody after analysis went to the weight to be accorded the evidence, but did not render the evidence inadmissible (see, People v. Julian, supra; People v. Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835, 836-837, 530 N.Y.S.2d 174).
The defendant also claims that he was prejudiced by the improper remarks of the prosecutor during summation which allegedly played upon the jury's fears, misrepresented the evidence, diminished the People's burden of proof, and improperly bolstered the credibility of the People's witness. Although we disapprove of the prosecutor's use of the "safe streets" argument, this was an isolated error and consequently was harmless (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Young, 113 A.D.2d 852, 854, 493 N.Y.S.2d 516). M...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brisco
...guilty. This type of "safe streets" argument is inflammatory and has repeatedly been disapproved by the courts (see People v. Jackson, 199 A.D.2d 535, 535, 605 N.Y.S.2d 409 ; People v. Payne, 187 A.D.2d 245, 250, 593 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).The prosecutor also compared the defendant's in-court demea......
-
People v. Gerrara
...their chain of custody was not established ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Young, 220 A.D.2d 789, 633 N.Y.S.2d 995; People v. Jackson, 199 A.D.2d 535, 605 N.Y.S.2d 409), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Contrary to the defendant's contentio......
-
People v. Isaac
...supra; People v. Leach, 203 A.D.2d 484, 611 N.Y.S.2d 17; People v. Brathwaite, 204 A.D.2d 733, 613 N.Y.S.2d 26; People v. Jackson, 199 A.D.2d 535, 605 N.Y.S.2d 409; People v. Ciro, 195 A.D.2d 568, 600 N.Y.S.2d 490; People v. Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835, 530 N.Y.S.2d 174). The defendant contends......
-
People v. Barnes
...the court sustained all defense objections to the remarks, admonishing the prosecutor to "wind up" her summation (see, People v. Jackson, 199 A.D.2d 535, 605 N.Y.S.2d 409). ...