People v. Philbert
| Decision Date | 03 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2007-02407. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 01676,874 N.Y.S.2d 540,60 A.D.3d 698 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LASANA PHILBERT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation and the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant made only general objections, did not request curative instructions when the objections were sustained, and did not timely move for a mistrial on the specific grounds he now asserts on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Daley, 50 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2008]; People v Wright, 40 AD3d 1021 [2007]; People v Williams, 27 AD3d 673 [2006]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542, 542 [2004]; People v White, 5 AD3d 511, 511 [2004]; People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569 [2002]; People v Livigni, 288 AD2d 323, 324 [2001]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence or were responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 961 [2008]; People v Applewhite, 50 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2008]). Although some of the remarks were improper, they were not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Nisvis, 56 AD3d 574 [2008]; People v Mathis, 55 AD3d 628, 629 [2008]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rhodes
...or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Ward, 106 A.D.3d 842, 843, 964 N.Y.S.2d 642;People v. Philbert, 60 A.D.3d 698, 699, 874 N.Y.S.2d 540;People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95). The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitt......
-
People v. Whittle
...660;People v. Valerio, 70 A.D.3d 869, 894 N.Y.S.2d 157;People v. Hendrix, 60 A.D.3d 1081, 1082–1083, 876 N.Y.S.2d 154;People v. Philbert, 60 A.D.3d 698, 699, 874 N.Y.S.2d 540;People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95). The defendant's challenges to the constitutionality of New ......
-
People v. Ramos
...guilt of those crimes under an accomplice theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Mathis, 60 A.D.3d at 698, 874 N.Y.S.2d 549; People v. Urena, 46 A.D.3d 714, 848 N.Y.S.2d 234; People v. Mendez, 34 A.D.3d 697, 698-699, 824 N.Y.S.2d 416; People v. Meji......
-
People v. Bey
...made only general one-word objections ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Clarke, 65 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 887 N.Y.S.2d 586; People v. Philbert, 60 A.D.3d 698, 699, 874 N.Y.S.2d 540). In any event, most of the challenged remarks in the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on the evidence......