At page 570 Permissible prosecutor comments during summation and burden of proof6 citing casesto the defendant’s contentions, the comments made by the prosecutor during summation were appropriate. It is the right of counsel during summation to comment…
- People v. Guevara, 96 A.D.3d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published Indeed, the prosecutor reminded the jury that he was “allowed to introduce [the complainant’s] testimony with respect to his credibility.” Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof i…
- People v. Bernardez, 85 A.D.3d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedTrial counsel’s failure to object to the People’s suggesting during their summation that the “prompt outcry” evidence was direct proof of the defendant’s guilt did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, since it must be presumed…
- People v. Patten, 43 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).publishedThe challenged statements were either “rhetorical comments ... a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation” (People v Valdes, 291 AD2d 513, 514 [2002]), “fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial” regarding the witness’ employme…
- People v. Meyers, 13 A.D.3d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).publishedIn any event, the comments constituted fair comment on the evidence presented or were responsive to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Shelton, supra; People v Mejias, 296 AD2d 583, 584 [2002]; People v Rodrigues, 258 AD2d 482 […
- People v. Doe, 11 A.D.3d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).publishedIn any event, the comments constituted fair comment on the evidence presented, or were responsive to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Shelton, supra; People v Mejias, 296 AD2d 583 [2002]; People v Rodrigues, 258 AD2d 482 [1999…
v.
Virgilio Ferrer
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered November 16, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that prosecutorial misconduct denied him his right to a fair trial is without merit. Contrary[*570] to the defendant’s contentions, the comments made by the prosecutor during summation were appropriate. It is the right of counsel during summation to comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury have to decide (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109). The prosecutor’s comments referred to matters in evidence, or which were fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, supra, at 109-110). The prosecutor’s remarks constituted a permissible response to the defendant’s characterization of a buy and bust operation and the performance of the police officers involved, and did not constitute improper bolstering.
The prosecutor did not attempt to shift or limit the People’s burden of proof. In any event, as the court correctly conveyed the burden of proof requirements to the jury, the jury is presumed to have followed the instructions as given (see, People v McCray, 167 AD2d 304, 305). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.