People v. Romero

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Citation: People v. Romero, 861 N.E.2d 89, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274 (N.Y. 2006)
• Decision Date: 19 December 2006
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert ROMERO, Appellant.

861 N.E.2d 89

7 N.Y.3d 911

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert ROMERO, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

December 19, 2006.

Weiss & Associates, P.C., New York City (Matthew J. Weiss of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Susan Gliner and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that various comments by the prosecutor during his summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial. Most of the remarks identified by defendant on appeal are unreviewable because they went unchallenged at trial (see e.g. People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852, 853, 532 N.Y.S.2d 354, 528 N.E.2d 507 [1988]), were met with only unspecified, general objections (see e.g. People v. Harris, 98 N.Y.2d 452, 491 n. 18, 749 N.Y.S.2d 766, 779 N.E.2d 705 [2002]; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839-840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 [1999]), or were raised for the first time in a postsummations mistrial motion (see e.g. People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 116, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 [2004]). Although a statement about defense counsel prompted a specific objection on the ground of burden-shifting, the trial court correctly concluded that the comment was not improper and, in order to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to defendant, the court issued a curative instruction that the People had the burden of proving every element of each charged offense. In addition, the court sustained an objection to the prosecutor's reference to a plea agreement reached in an...