People v. Flowers, 102 A.D.3d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Flowers, 102 A.D.3d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Perdomo (nyappdiv, 2017-10-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Perdomo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To the extent that any prejudicial effect may have resulted from any of the challenged remarks, it was ameliorated by the County Court’s instructions to the jury (see People v Murphy, 133 AD3d 690, 691 [2015]; People v Philips, 120 AD3d 1266, 1268 [2014]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bunting
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In any event, some of the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor in summation were fair comment on the evidence, 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 [1993]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scurry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, all of the challenged questioning and remarks were either within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]), fair response to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Marcus, 112 AD3d 652, 653 [2013]; People v Phillips, 285 AD2d 477, 478 [2001]), fair comment on the defendant’s testimony and other evidence (see People v Wilson, 77 AD3d 858, 859 [2010]; People v Siriani, 27 AD3d 670 [2006]), cured by the trial court’s charge *950 and instructions to the jury…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Davidson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
While the prosecutor made an improper comment in summation suggesting that the jury was precluded from hearing certain *940 evidence due to defense counsel’s objection, the comment was sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury, and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Fields, 115 AD3d at 674 ; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Ferrara, 220 AD2d 612, 613 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To the extent that any prejudicial effect may have resulted from certain remarks relating to the lineup identification, it was ameliorated by the trial court’s instructions (see People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569, 569 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To the extent that any prejudicial effect may have resulted from certain remarks relating to the lineup identification, it was ameliorated by the trial court’s instructions (see People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569, 569 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rhodes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To the extent that one spontaneous comment made in response to the defendant’s outburst was improper, it was sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury (see People v Hines, 102 AD3d 889, 890 [2013]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569, 569 [2002]) and was not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Ward, 106 AD3d 842, 843 [2013]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698, 699 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rhodes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To the extent that one spontaneous comment made in response to the defendant’s outburst was improper, it was sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury (see People v Hines, 102 AD3d 889, 890 [2013]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569, 569 [2002]) and was not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Ward, 106 AD3d 842, 843 [2013]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698, 699 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hutchinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s comments during summation did not deprive him of a fair trial, as the challenged comments were a fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the complainant, did not denigrate the defense, and were within the bounds of appropriate argument based on the evidence (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Fortune, 70 AD3d 964, 965 [2010]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811, 812 [2006]; People v Alvarado, 262 AD2d 651, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hutchinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s comments during summation did not deprive him of a fair trial, as the challenged comments were a fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the complainant, did not denigrate the defense, and were within the bounds of appropriate argument based on the evidence (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Fortune, 70 AD3d 964, 965 [2010]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811, 812 [2006]; People v Alvarado, 262 AD2d 651, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Lonnie Flowers
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 23, 2013.
102 A.D.3d 885
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered October 14, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion and did not deprive him of due process and the right to present a defense by denying his request to recall a certain[*886] witness for further cross-examination (see People v Smith, 90 AD3d 561, 561 [2011]; see also People v Macklin, 247 AD2d 408, 408 [1998]; People v Shapiro, 227 AD2d 506, 507 [1996]; People v Bunting, 134 AD2d 646, 648 [1987]; People v Mercado, 134 AD2d 292, 292 [1987]; cf. People v Rostick, 244 AD2d 768, 769 [1997]; People v Desire, 113 AD2d 952, 952 [1985]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court deprived him of due process and a fair trial by the admission of certain testimony related to his girlfriend is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Price, 120 AD2d 690, 690 [1986]). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s belated motion for a mistrial based on the admission of such testimony (see People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292 [1981]; People v Dollar, 79 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2010]).

The defendant’s contention that certain allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor during his summation deprived the defendant of due process and a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562, 563-564 [2008]). In any event, for the most part, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, or remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in summations, and were responsive to the summation of defense counsel (see People v Dorgan, 42 AD3d 505, 505 [2007]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811, 812 [2006]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]; People v Sinclair, 231 AD2d 926, 926 [1996]; People v Clark, 222 AD2d 446, 447 [1995]; People v Vaughn, 209 AD2d 459, 460 [1994]; People v Holder, 203 AD2d 382, 383 [1994]; People v Thomas, 186 AD2d 602, 602-603 [1992]; People v Anderson, 154 AD2d 607, 607 [1989]). To the extent that some of the comments were improper, they were sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury (see People v Evans, 291 AD2d 569, 569 [2002]; People v Brown, 272 AD2d 338, 339 [2000]) and did not deprive the defendant of due process and a fair trial (see People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; People v Svanberg, 293 AD2d 555, 555 [2002]; People v Holder, 203 AD2d at 383).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences with respect to the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (3) and the counts of murder and attempted murder in the second degree was not illegal (see People v Harris, 96 AD3d 502, 503 [2012], lv granted 19 NY3d 1026 [2012]; see generally People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130 [1984]; cf. People v Wright, 19 NY3d 359 [2012]; People v Hamilton, 4 NY3d[*887] 654 [2005]; People v Hernandez, 46 AD3d 574, 576-577 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.