People v. Ruiz
| Decision Date | 17 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | 14986. |
| Citation | 8 A.D.3d 831,778 N.Y.S.2d 559,2004 NY Slip Op 05293 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID RUIZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered July 25, 2003, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
Following a jury trial, defendant, an inmate, was convicted of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The conviction stemmed from an indictment accusing defendant of unlawfully possessing a 6¾-inch sharpened metal shank at the correctional facility in which he was incarcerated. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of 2½ to 5 years. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's only contention on appeal is that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his summation by improperly attacking defendant's credibility and vouching for prosecution witnesses, thereby substantially prejudicing defendant and depriving him of the right to a fair trial. We are unpersuaded. First, defendant failed to preserve this issue for our review by objecting during the prosecutor's summation or at any point thereafter (see People v Malloy, 262 AD2d 798, 799 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1022 [1999]). We decline to reverse in the interest of justice, as our review of the summation reveals no impropriety. At trial, defendant's theory of the case, emphasized during defense counsel's summation, was that the correction officer who testified to his discovery of the shank on defendant had actually fabricated the charge in an effort to frame him. In light of defendant's attempts to discredit the prosecution witnesses in this manner, the prosecution's response represented fair comment; (People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 144 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998] [citation omitted]; see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Baker, 4 AD3d 606, 608-609 [2004]).
In this regard, we further note that defendant has mischaracterized the prosecutor's statement, "if he's going to concoct a story, let's do it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allan v. Conway
...*5 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2009) (citing People v. Reilly, 47 N.Y.2d 860, 419 N.Y.S.2d 63, 392 N.E.2d 1246 (1979); People v. Ruiz, 8 A.D.3d 831, 778 N.Y.S.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (failure to objectto prosecutor's summation remarks rendered claim unpreserved for appellate review). During the......
-
People v. Casanova
...of the female CI by stating that the jury "saw [that] she was open about the questions that were asked of her" (see People v. Ruiz, 8 A.D.3d 831, 832, 778 N.Y.S.2d 559 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 711, 785 N.Y.S.2d 39, 818 N.E.2d 681 [2004] ; People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 144, 666 N.Y.S......
-
People v. McIver
...101;see People v. Mendez, 80 A.D.3d 523, 524, 914 N.Y.S.2d 893,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 861, 923 N.Y.S.2d 423, 947 N.E.2d 1202;People v. Ruiz, 8 A.D.3d 831, 832, 778 N.Y.S.2d 559,lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 711, 785 N.Y.S.2d 39, 818 N.E.2d 681). In any event, the two comments challenged by defendant were......
- People v. Keenan, 14985.