green
Positive treatment
Issue: fair response defenseNY ↗
Issue: summation defenseNY ↗
Issue: statements contained defenseNY ↗
Issue: evidence or responsive defenseNY ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
65.4 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, 2016–2019 ·
…the prosecutor's closing statement must be evaluated in light of the defense summation, which put into issue the witnesses' character and credibility and justified the people's response
at p. 821
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 ·
…a decided tendency to prejudice the jury
at p. 821
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…a fair response to defense counsel's summation and did not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy
at p. 821
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jones v. Annucci
the prosecutor's closing statement must be evaluated in light- of the defense summation,- which put into issue the complainants' character and credibility and justified' the people's response.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Gjurashaj
(2×)
In any event, although one of the comments misstated the evidence, the majority of the challenged comments were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments and constituted a fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or a fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Campbell , 244 AD3d 995, 996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rodriguez
(2×)
In any event, the challenged remarks were either fair comment on the evidence or responsive to defense counsel's summation ( see People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Ashwal , 39 NY2d 105, 109-110).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lundy
In any event, that contention lacks merit. "[T]he prosecutor's closing statement must be evaluated in light of the defense summation, which put into issue the [witnesses'] character and credibility and justified the People's response" ( People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Bruce-Ross (Duncan)
(2×)
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them either unpreserved ( see People v Bryan , 55 AD3d 921 , 921 [2008]; People v Dick , 48 AD3d 697 [2008]; People v Bradford , 137 AD3d 928 , 929 [2016]; People v Ramos , 127 AD3d 996 , 997 [2015]), or without merit ( People v Santiago , 22 NY3d 740 , 750 [2014]; People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Ashwal , 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hinojoso-Soto
In any event, that contention is without merit ( see generally People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stanley
In any event, that contention is without merit (see generally People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Kaval
In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Guzman, 138 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2016]; People v Ramrattan, 126 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]), or a fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Johnson, 127 AD3d 1234, 1234 [2015]), or do not otherwise require reversal (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; cf. People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 110-111 [1976]; People v Rivera, 128 AD3d 857, 858 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Sparagano
In any event, the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981]), or, to the extent they were improper, did not deprive him of a fair trial, and any other error as to individual comments was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Mairena, 150 AD3d 1267 [2017]; People v Hill, 286 AD2d 777, 778 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hunter
The defendant’s contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is without merit, as the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in summations, or were responsive to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Brown, 135 AD3d 495 [2016]; People v Fers, 32 AD3d 801 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Rudenko
In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Guzman, 138 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2016]; People v Ramrattan, 126 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]), were fair response to the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Johnson, 127 AD3d 1234, 1234 [2015]), or do not otherwise require reversal (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; cf. People v. Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 110-111 [1976]; People v Rivera, 128 AD3d 857, 858 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mairena
In any event, the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McManus
In any event, some of the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the complainant, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 110 [1976]; People v Ramrattan, 126 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Holder
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McManus
In any event, some of the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the complainant, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 110 [1976]; People v Ramrattan, 126 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McManus
In any event, some of the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the complainant, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 110 [1976]; People v Ramrattan, 126 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wallace
In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence or constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Simmons, 106 AD3d at 1117 ; People v Morency, 104 AD3d 877, 878 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ramirez
Most of the prosecutor’s alleged improper comments during summation were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-400 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Payne (Aubrey)
Thus, in light of defense counsel's remarks on summation that the police witnesses were lying, the prosecutor was entitled to respond directly to defense counsel's explicit argument ( see People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Tsouristakis , 82 AD3d 612 [2011]) and it was within the bounds of proper advocacy for the prosecutor to point out that the police officers had no apparent motive to lie ( see People v Adamo , 309 AD2d 808 [2003]; People v Gonzalez , 298 AD2d 133 [2002]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Alphonso
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981] ; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Barber, 133 AD3d 868, 871 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Redfield
Moreover, the prosecutor’s attempts to persuade the jurors as to the credibility of the victim and her account constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Rivera, 133 AD3d 1255 , 1256 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1154 [2016]), and fair response to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Jackson, 141 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Redfield
Moreover, the prosecutor’s attempts to persuade the jurors as to the credibility of the victim and her account constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Rivera, 133 AD3d 1255 , 1256 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1154 [2016]), and fair response to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Jackson, 141 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2016]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Thomas
Here, the prosecutor’s summation comments were fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Rosario, 195 AD2d 577 [1993]), or fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence (see People v White, 5 AD3d 511 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We note that “the prosecutor’s closing statement must be evaluated in light of the defense summation, which put into issue the [witnesses’] character and credibility and justified the People’s response” (People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]) and, here, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments at issue on summation were “a fair response to defense counsel’s summation and did not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy” (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d 983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see generally Halm, 81 NY2d at 821 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We note that “the prosecutor’s closing statement must be evaluated in light of the defense summation, which put into issue the [witnesses’] character and credibility and justified the People’s response” (People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]) and, here, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments at issue on summation were “a fair response to defense counsel’s summation and did not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy” (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d 983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see generally Halm, 81 NY2d at 821 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCray
Courts have long recognized “the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument” (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]) and that a summation attack by the defense, for example, on the prosecution witnesses’ credibility may justify a People’s response in kind (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McCray (Harold)
Courts have long recognized "the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" ( People v Galloway , 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]) and that a summation attack by the defense, for example, on the prosecution witnesses' credibility may justify a People's response in kind ( see People v Halm , 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
The remarks in question constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Rivera, 133 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2015]; People v Lofton, 132 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2015]) as well as fair response to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Walker, 117 AD3d 1441, 1442 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1044 [2014]), and those remarks did not sidetrack the jurors from their ultimate responsibility of determining the facts essential to defendant’s guilt or innocence (see generally People v Calabria, 94 NY2d 519, 523 [2000]; People v Alicea, 37 NY2d 601, 605 [1975]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
The remarks in question constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Rivera, 133 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2015]; People v Lofton, 132 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2015]) as well as fair response to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Walker, 117 AD3d 1441, 1442 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1044 [2014]), and those remarks did not sidetrack the jurors from their ultimate responsibility of determining the facts essential to defendant’s guilt or innocence (see generally People v Calabria, 94 NY2d 519, 523 [2000]; People v Alicea, 37 NY2d 601, 605 [1975]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Drake
In any event, we conclude that his contention lacks merit (see generally People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Drake
In any event, we conclude that his contention lacks merit (see generally People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Singh
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d at 109-110 ; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Baez
In any event, the majority of the challenged comments and slides were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, constituted a fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation, or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Quezada, 116 AD3d 796, 798 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pringle
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Barber, 133 AD3d 868, 871 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pringle
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Barber, 133 AD3d 868, 871 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Blue
In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit, as the challenged remarks were either within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the People’s witnesses, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hardy
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 1173 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Taylor
In any event, most of those remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 1173 [2015]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Barber
In any event, most of the prosecutor’s remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Krut
In any event, those challenged remarks were proper responses to arguments made by defense counsel on summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Gonzalez, 11 AD3d 558, 559 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Singletary
In any event, most of the prosecutor’s remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; People v Sheehan, 105 AD3d 873, 875 [2013]; People v Maldonado, 55 AD3d 626, 628 [2008]; People v Shagi, 288 AD2d 495, 496 [2001]; People v Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 664 [1986]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Adamson
The remaining challenges to the prosecutor’s summation remarks are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, those challenged remarks were proper responses to arguments made by defense counsel on summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Gonzalez, 11 AD3d 558 [2004]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Adamson
The remaining challenges to the prosecutor’s summation remarks are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, those challenged remarks were proper responses to arguments made by defense counsel on summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Gonzalez, 11 AD3d 558 [2004]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. McLaren
The challenged remarks were either permissible rhetorical comment (s ee People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]), fair response to the arguments and issues raised by the defense (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]), or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]), or, if improper, were not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]). *550 The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mamadou
In any event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant’s summation, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Williams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1152 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Guerrier
In any event, all of the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the People’s witnesses, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Roseboro
In any event, the challenged remarks were proper because they were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted a fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Molinaro, 62 AD3d 724, 724-725 [2009]; People v Holguin, 284 AD2d 343 [2001]; People v Stokes, 282 AD2d 553, 554 [2001]; People v Alexandria, 126 AD2d 655 [1987]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ramos
In any event, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial, as the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, or responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]). *997 The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury with respect to the count of robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to request specific instructions or to o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ramrattan
In any event, most of the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation were within the bounds of permissible comment, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the People’s complaining witness, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Ariza, 77 AD3d 844, 846 [2010]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811, 812 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Mitchell
In any event, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial; most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, or responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Turner, 214 AD2d 594 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Keith Mitchell, Respondent
v.
Keith Mitchell, Respondent
Published
Citer courts: N.D. New York (1)
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), appeal dismissed upon the ground that the reversal by the Appellate Division was not "on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]).