People v. Oakley

• Decision Date: 21 October 1985
• Citation: People v. Oakley, 494 N.Y.S.2d 383, 114 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Osee OAKLEY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 383

494 N.Y.S.2d 383

114 A.D.2d 473

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v.Osee OAKLEY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Oct. 21, 1985.

George T. Dunn, New York City, for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Janet M. Berk, of counsel; Linda Gerstel Feder, on brief), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, KUNZEMAN and KOOPER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Fuchs, J.), rendered March 11, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Since defendant did not object to any of the comments made by the prosecutor at the trial, no error of law was preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276).In any event, there was not such misconduct as to deny defendant a fair trial.The remark concerning the witness's lack of motivation to lie was a proper comment on his credibility, which was at issue in the trial (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 38 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564).Nor was it improper to tell the jury that the prosecutor did not know the whereabouts of a potential witness since several times in his summation defense counsel had referred to the failure to call her (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 188 N.Y.S.2d 465, 160 N.E.2d 26, cert. denied362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620).The other comments were...