People v. Paul
| Decision Date | 29 March 2011 |
| Citation | 82 A.D.3d 1267,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02704,919 N.Y.S.2d 393 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Shan PAUL, also known as Owen Damien Smith, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Melissa J. Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), rendered March 25, 2009, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual misconduct, upon a jury verdict, and rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that various comments made by the prosecutor during her summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial are unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the remarks at issue or made only general objections, or his objections were sustained without any further request for curative instructions, and his motion for a mistrial after the completion of summations was untimely and failed to preserve his contention ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 642, 511 N.Y.S.2d 586, 503 N.E.2d 1017;People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657). In any event, the challenged remarks did not exceed the bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument and constituted either fair comment upon the evidence presented or fair response to the defense summation ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885;People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rossi
...misconduct in connection with certain opening remarks and certain direct examination questions ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Paul, 82 A.D.3d 1267, 919 N.Y.S.2d 393;People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657). In any event, the isolated remarks and questions by the prosecutor we......
-
People v. Vasquez
...N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Martin, 116 A.D.3d 981, 983 N.Y.S.2d 813 ; People v. Stewart, 89 A.D.3d 1044, 933 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; People v. Paul, 82 A.D.3d 1267, 919 N.Y.S.2d 393 ) and, in any event, without merit. The challenged comments were "within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible......
-
People v. Hiraeta
...counsel, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Paul, 82 A.D.3d 1267, 1268, 919 N.Y.S.2d 393;People v. Bowen, 67 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 889 N.Y.S.2d 645;People v. Dunn, 54 A.D.3d 871, 864 N.Y.S.2d 107). The defendant'......
- People v. Macfarlane