People v. Houck, 101 A.D.3d 1239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Houck, 101 A.D.3d 1239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Mesko (nyappdiv, 2017-05-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mesko
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
That being said, a prosecutorial misstep of that sort, even when coupled with other sporadic and arguably improper actions by the prosecutor, is not the type of pervasive and flagrant misconduct that would warrant a new trial (see People v Green, 141 AD3d 1036, 1042 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1072 [2016]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lancaster (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Defendant's contention that the jury charge for the crime of predatory sexual assault was incorrect is, thus, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Dumancela, 136 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1150 [2016]; People v Green, 119 AD3d 23, 30 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1062 [2014]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]). -9- 105848 However, we do find merit to defendant's argument, in his pro se supplemental brief, that his convictions for criminal sexual act in the first degree, rape in the first degree and aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree are lesser included of…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cochran
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Defendant did not explicitly request a limiting instruction (see People v Nicholson, 26 NY3d 813, 830 [2016]; People v Jordan, 193 AD2d 890, 893 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 756 [1993]), nor did he object to the relevant portion of the People’s closing (see People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Delosh, 2 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 626 [2004]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
As this objection came too late to permit any error to be corrected, the claim is unpreserved (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Henry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Because defendant failed to object to this cross-examination at the time, his contention on appeal is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rebollo, 107 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2013]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. VanVorst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant’s challenge to the propriety of Supreme Court’s charge that the jury must “accept the law from [the c]ourt without question, without reservation and with strict obedience” is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit (see People v Weinberg, 83 NY2d 262, 268 [1994]; People v Goetz, 73 NY2d 751, 753 [1988], cert denied 489 US 1053 [1989]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Tirado, 192 AD2d 755, 756 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1081 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. VanVorst
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant’s challenge to the propriety of Supreme Court’s charge that the jury must “accept the law from [the c]ourt without question, without reservation and with strict obedience” is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit (see People v Weinberg, 83 NY2d 262, 268 [1994]; People v Goetz, 73 NY2d 751, 753 [1988], cert denied 489 US 1053 [1989]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Tirado, 192 AD2d 755, 756 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1081 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rankin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s pro se contention that County Court erred in instructing the jury that the conspiracy charge required evidence that defendant conspired to commit murder in the second degree, as opposed to murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment, is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as defendant did not object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Williams, 28 AD3d at 1009 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 252 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 853 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rankin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendant’s pro se contention that County Court erred in instructing the jury that the conspiracy charge required evidence that defendant conspired to commit murder in the second degree, as opposed to murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment, is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as defendant did not object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Williams, 28 AD3d at 1009 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 252 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 853 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Piznarski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
However, defendant did not preserve his challenge to County Court’s jury charge regarding the element of reasonable expectation of privacy by an objection to the charge as given (see GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction with respect thereto. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Piznarski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
However, defendant did not preserve his challenge to County Court’s jury charge regarding the element of reasonable expectation of privacy by an objection to the charge as given (see GPL 470.05 [2]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction with respect thereto. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hughes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct are largely unpreserved and, in any event, the complained of prosecutorial summation remarks did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or due process (see People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Weber, 40 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 927 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hughes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct are largely unpreserved and, in any event, the complained of prosecutorial summation remarks did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or due process (see People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; People v Weber, 40 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 927 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mattis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that this constituted error was not properly preserved (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]) and, in any event, it was not reversible error given the context and circumstances under which the comments were made (see People v Smith, 12 AD3d 946, 948 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 768 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mattis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendant’s contention that this constituted error was not properly preserved (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Houck, 101 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]) and, in any event, it was not reversible error given the context and circumstances under which the comments were made (see People v Smith, 12 AD3d 946, 948 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 768 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Frank B. Houck
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 13, 2012.
101 A.D.3d 1239
McCarthy.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
McCarthy, J.

[*1240] Defendant asserts that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial misconduct and an improper jury charge. Specifically, defendant argues that during cross-examination and summation, the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant and forced him to characterize a prosecution witness as a liar. Further, defendant argues that the jury instructions did not sufficiently address the limited purpose for which evidence of defendant’s prior conviction could be used.

Among the questions during cross-examination to which defendant objected at trial, only one is arguably relevant to the issues he raises on appeal. At one point, the prosecutor asked defendant, “And according to you, you could have scientifically proven that [you were not intoxicated] at that time because your blood alcohol content would not have been illegal, correct?” Defendant’s objection to this question was overruled, and defendant now argues that this question serves as evidence of the prosecutor’s attempts to impermissibly shift the burden of proof to defendant. Even if this question were inappropriate, standing alone it is insufficient to constitute “a flagrant and pervasive pattern of prosecutorial misconduct” so as to warrant a new trial (People v Demming, 116 AD2d 886, 887 [1986], lv denied 67 NY2d 941 [1986]; see People v Wright, 88 AD3d 1154, 1158 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 863 [2011]; People v White, 79 AD3d 1460, 1464-1465 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]; People v Jones, 283 AD2d 665, 668 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 903 [2001]).

As to comments in the prosecutor’s closing argument, the other questions on cross-examination and County Court’s charge to the jury, defendant failed to preserve these issues for appeal. Defendant did not object to either the closing statement, questions or jury instructions at the time that they were given. Because he did not protest these issues at a time when the court had an opportunity to correct the alleged errors, they are not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Head, 90 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2011]; People v Clairmont, 75 AD3d 920, 923-924 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 919 [2010]; People v Keller, 238 AD2d 758, 758 [1997]). As to these unpreserved issues, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.