People v. Jones
Decision Date | 18 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 2004-10979. |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONALD JONES, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims that the prosecutor conducted improper cross-examinations and an improper summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In the few instances when the defendant did object, he either made only general objections or failed to request a curative instruction when an objection was sustained (see People v Aponte, 28 AD3d 672 [2006]; People v Haripersaud, 24 AD3d 468, 469 [2005]; People v Portalatin, 18 AD3d 673, 674 [2005]). In any event, to the extent that any of the questioning or comments made during summation were improper, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Colon, 43 AD3d 951 [2007]; People v Love, 37 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]; People v Frazier, 35 AD3d 759, 759-760 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge in his supplemental pro se brief to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Rogers
...witnesses are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gill, 54 A.D.3d 965, 864 N.Y.S.2d 135; People v. Jones, 46 A.D.3d 840, 847 N.Y.S.2d 653), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant contends that certain ......
-
People v. Tan
...are for the most part unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Gill , 54 A.D.3d 965, 864 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; People v. Jones , 46 A.D.3d 840, 847 N.Y.S.2d 653 ), and, in any event, without merit. MASTRO, J.P., DUFFY, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., ...
- People v. Jones
- People v. Lafontant