People v. Jakes

Decision Date30 March 1992
Citation582 N.Y.S.2d 445,181 A.D.2d 913
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Andre JAKES, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Michael J. Noonan, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Tammy J. Smiley and Michael J. Cannon, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and THOMPSON, BRACKEN and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Goldstein, J.), rendered April 2, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's remarks during summation improperly bolstered the complainant's testimony, denigrated the defense, and appealed to the emotions of the jury, were not preserved for appellate review, since the defendant either failed to object to the remarks during the trial or failed to request curative instructions after the trial court sustained his objections (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Larsen, 157 A.D.2d 672, 549 N.Y.S.2d 772). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit. The prosecutor's repeated reference to the complainant taking the stand was not improper bolstering of that witness, since it was a fair response to the defense's attack on the complainant's reliability (see, People v. Gibbs, 166 A.D.2d 454, 560 N.Y.S.2d 500; People v. Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500, 533 N.Y.S.2d 1001). Further, these remarks did not constitute improper comments on the defendant's failure to take the stand (see, People v. Gilmore, 152 A.D.2d 743, 544 N.Y.S.2d 378). The prosecutor's remarks to the effect that the defense was trying to divert the jury from the complainant's identification was fair comment on the defense's summation. Although the prosecutor's comments that there was "no one willing to help [the complainant]" and "nobody else willing to identify these defendants" did not constitute comments on matters in the record, but rather constituted comments on matters dehors the record, they did not prejudice the defendant (see, People v. Gilmore, supra; People v. Smith, 181 A.D.2d 927, 582 N.Y.S.2d 447 [decided herewith].

We also find that the defendant waived his objections to the trial court's identification charge since it was essentially given as requested and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Knight
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 1995
    ...remember (1 CJI[NY] 10.01, Part A). Daniels was followed in a substantial line of Appellate Division decisions (e.g., People v. Jakes, 181 A.D.2d 913, 914, 582 N.Y.S.2d 445; People v. Green, 140 A.D.2d 456, 528 N.Y.S.2d 337; People v. Cobb, 137 A.D.2d 700, 524 N.Y.S.2d 790; People v. Lyons,......
  • People v. Glover
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 15, 1993
    ...the trial court's identification charge, since he did not alert the trial court that he was not satisfied with it (see, People v. Jakes, 181 A.D.2d 913, 582 N.Y.S.2d 445). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d We find the defendant's remai......
  • People v. Hughes
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 30, 1992
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 30, 1992
    ...comments on matters dehors the record, those comments did not prejudice the defendant (see, People v. Gilmore, supra; People v. Jakes, 181 A.D.2d 913, 582 N.Y.S.2d 445 [decided The sentence imposed was not excessive. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT