People v. Utley, 383 N.E.2d 558 (N.Y. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Utley, 383 N.E.2d 558 (N.Y. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Gillespie (nyappdiv, 2012-07-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gillespie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contentions regarding certain comments made by the prosecutor on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908, 910 [1978]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gillespie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contentions regarding certain comments made by the prosecutor on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908, 910 [1978]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Byrd
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]; People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071 [1979]; People v Utley, 45 NY2d 908, 910 [1978]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Hendrix, 60 AD3d 1081, 1082-1083 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
James Utley
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 26, 1978.
383 N.E.2d 558
1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2326
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Andrew C. Fine, Lawrence A. Vogelman and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Charles Testagrossa, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

[*910] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

No objection having been taken to the remarks in the prosecutor’s summation that have been raised on this appeal, including the comments expressing confidence in the truthfulness of the police officers, they are not preserved for review in this court (CPL 470.05, subd 2). The unanswered question put to the Trial Judge on this subject, without more, is hardly to be construed as a request to charge. Especially is this so because at the conclusion of the charge, which included no such instruction but did correctly enunciate many of the principles that might have aided the jury in judging the truthfulness of any witness’ testimony, defense counsel specifically informed the Trial Judge that he had no requests and no exceptions (see People v Cicchetti, 44 NY2d 803, 805; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 226, 228).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.