People v. Prince, 36 A.D.3d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Prince, 36 A.D.3d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Peguero-Sanchez (nyappdiv, 2016-07-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Peguero-Sanchez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
To the extent that claims as to the prosecutor’s summation are not preserved for appellate review, this Court can and should reach them as a matter of discretion in the exercise of its interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Caparella, 83 AD3d 730, 731 [2011]; People v Ortiz, 69 AD3d 490, 491 [2010]; People v Gordon, 50 AD3d at 822 ; People v Prince, 36 AD3d 833, 834 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Colon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The prosecutor’s com ments during summation that are alleged to be prejudicial were either fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to arguments presented in summation by defense counsel, or constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Prince, 36 AD3d 833, 834 [2007]; People v Urena, 24 AD3d 693 [2005]; People v Meyers, 13 AD3d 395 [2004] ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bossett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Although the prosecutor made certain remarks during his summation which constituted improper vouching for the credibility of the People’s witnesses and exceeded the bounds of permissible comment, any prejudice caused by those remarks was dissipated when the Supreme Court sustained the defendant’s objections and provided forceful and clear curative instructions to the jury immediately after each improper remark, and then again during its final charge (see People v Wright, 40 AD3d 1021 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 884 [2007]; People v Haynes, 39 AD3d 562, 563-564 [2007]; People v Prince, 36 AD3d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Schouenborg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The prosecutor’s comments during summation that were alleged to be prejudicial were either fair comment upon the evidence, a fair response to arguments presented in summation by defense counsel, or harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Prince, 36 AD3d 833, 834 [2007] ; People v Urena, 24 AD3d 693 [2005]; People v Meyers, 13 AD3d 395 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Christopher Prince
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 23, 2007.
36 A.D.3d 833
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered November 15, 2004, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant preserved for appellate review his claim that the prosecutor, in summation, vouched for the credibility of the People’s witnesses. The defendant objected to many of the prosecutor’s comments in a timely fashion, requested curative instructions, and then, at the conclusion of the summation, moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied in part because it found that the prosecutor, in challenging the defendant’s arguments, had not vouched for the credibility of[*834] the People’s witnesses (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Perez, 18 AD3d 480 [2005]; People v Powell, 4 AD3d 489 [2004]). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review certain challenges to the prosecutor’s comments, we review those claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392, 393 [2006]; People v Smith, 288 AD2d 496 [2001]).

Many of the prosecutor’s summation comments were proper, as they were a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation and a fair comment on the evidence (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399, 401 [1981]; People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, 77-78 [1959]; People v Woodson, 31 AD3d 678 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 871 [2006]; People v Martinez, 27 AD3d 665, 666 [2006]; People v Mattia, 8 AD3d 299, 299-300 [2004]; People v West, 237 AD2d 470, 472 [1997]). Any prejudice that may have resulted from the prosecutor’s vouching for the credibility of the People’s witnesses based on the statement that the witnesses could not have been mistaken in their identification of the defendant was alleviated when the trial court sustained the defendant’s objections and provided curative instructions to the jury (see People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 [1983]; People v Williams, 14 AD3d 519 [2005]; People v Efferson, 300 AD2d 674 [2002]; People v Cabrera, 272 AD2d 623 [2000]). To the extent that any alleged inappropriate comment remained unaddressed, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; see also People v Dardain, 226 AD2d 551 [1996]; People v Elliot, 216 AD2d 576 [1995]; People v James, 162 AD2d 618 [1990]).

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]; People v Taylor, 11 AD3d 715 [2004]), and in any event, is without merit. Krausman, J.P., Florio, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.