People v. Perdomo
| Decision Date | 10 May 1994 |
| Citation | 204 A.D.2d 128,614 N.Y.S.2d 105 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fernando PERDOMO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered June 3, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Since defendant failed to raise any further objection or request a mistrial following the court's prompt curative instruction as to certain hearsay testimony, the instruction must be deemed to have corrected the error to defendant's satisfaction (People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299).
Defendant did not request that the trial court include in its charge the specific language he now cites (People v. Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596, 597, 581 N.Y.S.2d 334, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1045, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 596 N.E.2d 411), and his subsequent exception did not alert the court to his current claim that, by failing to give this additional charge, he was denied his right to a fair trial (People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908, 563 N.Y.S.2d 42, 564 N.E.2d 652). In any event, the court's charge, taken as a whole, properly conveyed to the jury how it should evaluate witness testimony (People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 831-832, 469 N.Y.S.2d 693, 457 N.E.2d 800; People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 227-228, 367 N.Y.S.2d 208, 326 N.E.2d 784).
Finally, the prosecutor's summation did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885). Defendant's sentence is legal and appropriate and we decline to reduce it in the interest of justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Arnold
...nor objected to the charge that was given by the court (see, People v. Marero, 208 A.D.2d 769, 617 N.Y.S.2d 780; People v. Perdomo, 204 A.D.2d 128, 614 N.Y.S.2d 105; People v. Velez, 150 A.D.2d 514, 541 N.Y.S.2d 109). In any event, the charge was neutral; it was directed at the jurors in ge......
- People v. Perdomo
- Conneely v. Conneely