People v. Sprinkle

Decision Date28 November 1995
Citation221 A.D.2d 269,634 N.Y.S.2d 83
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles SPRINKLE, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

B.E. O'Donoghue, for respondent.

P.T. Blum, for defendant-appellant.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ELLERIN, ROSS, NARDELLI and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered October 6, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court's curative instructions, given at the request of defense counsel, in connection with the prosecutor's inaccurate summary of a portion of the testimony, and regarding a comment that might have been construed as shifting the burden of proof, served to eliminate any prejudice to defendant. It is presumed that the jury understood and followed those instructions (People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104, 462 N.Y.S.2d 816, 449 N.E.2d 710).

The defense summation urged the jury to accept a version of the events herein that was unsupported by trial evidence. In such circumstances, the prosecutor in summation could properly characterize the argument as absurd (see, People v. Jones, 162 A.D.2d 204, 556 N.Y.S.2d 579, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 859, 560 N.Y.S.2d 999, 561 N.E.2d 899). Defendant's claim that certain of the prosecutor's other comments in summation might have suggested an uncharged crime is unpreserved by appropriate and timely objection (CPL 470.05). In any event, the comments were responsive 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 the trial court's final instructions prevented any prejudice to defendant. In all other respects, the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on the evidence (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885).

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 22, 1998
    ...which posited the theory of a conspiracy to frame the defendant that was not supported by the trial evidence (see, People v. Sprinkle, 221 A.D.2d 269, 634 N.Y.S.2d 83; People v. Gathers, 207 A.D.2d 751, 752, 616 N.Y.S.2d 732; People v. Santana, 173 A.D.2d 417, 570 N.Y.S.2d 291). The defenda......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT