People v. Street, 124 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). · Go Syfert
People v. Street, 124 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Juarez (nyappdiv, 1992-11-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. Juarez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
We have reviewed the defendant’s contentions and find that the prosecutor’s remarks concerning the complainant’s veracity were made in fair response to the defense counsel’s summation (People v Shaw, 150 AD2d 626 ; People v Roccaforte, 141 AD2d 775, 776 ; see, People v Street, 124 AD2d 841 ; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 150, 151 ; People v Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 664 ), while her remarks concerning the defendant’s prior convictions did not violate the Sandoval ruling and were properly directed at the defendant’s credibility (see, People v Black, 159 AD2d 399, 400 ; People v Sherman, 106 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Leon Street
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 24, 1986.
124 A.D.2d 841
1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62179
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s alibi charge failed to unequivocally state that the People have the burden of disproving an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Victor, 62 NY2d 374, 378) and impermissibly shifted to him the burden of proof has not been preserved for our review as a matter of law (see, People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022). In any event, while the alibi charge was not exemplary (cf. 1 CJI [NY] 12.10 pp 696-697), the charge as a whole adequately apprised the jury of the relevant concepts to be applied (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830).

Moreover, although several of the prosecutor’s remarks during summation might otherwise have been seen as exceeding the bounds of rhetorical comment, they must be evaluated in comparison with the summation of the defense (see, People v Payne, 111 AD2d 938). Particularly where, as here, the defense questioned the ability of the People’s witness to be truthful (see, People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151), the comments made by the prosecutor in his summation were not unreasonable and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for our review and we find it unnecessary to consider its merits in the interest of justice. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.