People v. Romero
| Decision Date | 19 December 2006 |
| Citation | 7 N.Y.3d 911,861 N.E.2d 89 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert ROMERO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
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 unrelated, high-profile federal case, and it cannot be said that this isolated remark, viewed in conjunction with the entire summation and the trial court's corrective action, deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Osman
...we conclude that many of defendant's contentions are not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 [2006] ). In any event, any improprieties in the prosecutor's remarks were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of ......
-
People v. Desmond
...during the sexual assault. Defendant voiced only a general objection in response to that testimony ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89;People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 [1999];People v. Heesh, 94 A.D.3d 1159, 1163......
-
People v. Doll
...A.D.3d 1486, 1487, 894 N.Y.S.2d 279,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 885, 903 N.Y.S.2d 773, 929 N.E.2d 1008;see generally People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89). In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the allegedly improper comments by the prosecutor were fa......
-
People v. Nelson
...for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), because he failed to object to the comments he now challenges (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ), or failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instr......
-
Opening statement
...revelations regarding defendant). The trial court may also give curative instructions to undo any potential harm. People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 911, 861 N.E.2d 89 (2006); People v. Rahman , 189 A.D.3d 1616, 134 N.Y.S.3d 819 (2d Dept. 2020). Untrue statements in a closing may warrant a mistria......
-
Opening statement
...inspection or as evidence at trial). he trial court may also give curative instructions to undo any potential harm. People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 911, 861 N.E.2d 89 (2006); People v. Rahman , 189 A.D.3d 1616, 134 N.Y.S.3d 819 (2d Dept. 2020). Untrue statements in a closing may warrant a mistr......