People v. Planca

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: ROSENBERGER
• Citation: People v. Planca, 639 N.Y.S.2d 922, 225 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 26 March 1996
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joe PLANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 922

639 N.Y.S.2d 922

225 A.D.2d 470

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joe PLANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division First Department.

March 26, 1996.

Deirdre Waldron Power, for respondent.

Damon L. Preston, for defendant-appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered January 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court's questioning of a venireperson challenged by defendant for cause elicited responses satisfying the requirement that the case be determined solely on the evidence (People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 78, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886, 432 N.E.2d 758).

The prosecutor's summation comments constituted appropriate response to the defense summation (People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 188 N.Y.S.2d 465, 160 N.E.2d 26, cert. denied 362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620), and fair comment on the evidence, presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885). Further, in light of the trial court's jury charges regarding, inter alia, the burden of proof, there is no danger that the rhetorical device utilized...