People v. Tonge
| Citation | 710 N.E.2d 653,93 N.Y.2d 838,688 N.Y.S.2d 88 |
| Parties | , 710 N.E.2d 653, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 1600 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vere TONGE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1999 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant's claim that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor stated in her summation that his conduct fit the "typical behavior of a sex offender" is unpreserved for our review. Defense counsel made only a general objection to the prosecutor's remark at summation; a party's failure to specify the basis for a general objection renders the argument unpreserved for this Court's review (see, People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885, 886, 568 N.Y.S.2d 899, 571 N.E.2d 69; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 881, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 644 N.E.2d 1342; People v. Ford, 69 N.Y.2d 775, 776, 513 N.Y.S.2d 106, 505 N.E.2d 615). Defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Defendant asserts that defense counsel failed to object to other improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation. Viewed as a whole, however, defense counsel's efforts reflect "a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented" (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCall v. Capra
...during summation must be preserved for appellate review by a specific objection made at trial. See People v. Tonge,93 N.Y.2d 838, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653, 653 (1999)(citations omitted). “[A] party's failure to specify the basis for a general objection renders the argument unpreserve......
-
Dunn v. Sears
...As to Adequacy Factor II, New York State caselaw is consistent with this result in this case. See, e.g., People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 (1999) (noting that failure to specify the basis for a general objection to a remark on summation leaves the argument unpr......
-
Bratcher v. McCray
...to specify the basis for a general objection renders the argument unpreserved for [appellate] review." People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839-40, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 (1999) (cited in Bratcher, supra); see also People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 1002, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 671 N.E.2d 1......
-
People v. Fletcher
...counsel either did not object to the challenged remarks or made only general objections (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 ; People v. Terry, 122 A.D.3d 882, 996 N.Y.S.2d 362 ). In any event, the contention is without merit. The pro......