response defense in New York

1998Upon consideration of the record as a whole (see, People v Dermon, 237 AD2d 530 ; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114 ), the prosecutor’s remarks constituted an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation and fair comment upon the evidence (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905 ).

1998Given that the testimony regarding the search was properly admitted, that defendant elicited further testimony concerning the search and that the defense summation was exclusively concerned with assertion of the insanity defense and refutation of the conclusions stated by the People’s psychiatric expert, the People’s argument that no weapon was produced because defendant, knowing his actions were wrong, disposed of the weapon used, was both fair comment on the evidence and a proper response to the defense summation (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 ).

1997Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted because the summation did not go beyond the bounds of permissible commentary (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Barber, 231 AD2d 835 ), was an appropriate response to the defense summation (see, People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67 , cert denied 362 US 912 ) and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was exceptionally strong (see, People v Pickens, 229 AD2d 607, 609 , lv denied 89 NY2d 866 ).

1992The sum mation was a proper response to the defense summation, and was clearly fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67 , cert denied 362 US 912 ).

2015Although the court’s response was error, inasmuch as a court “must state a particularized reason for [restraining defendant] on the record” even at a bench trial (People v Best, 19 NY3d 739, 743 [2012]), we nevertheless conclude that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the error “did not contribute to the [court’s decision]” on the suppression issue (People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 153 [2011], cert denied 566 US —, 132 S Ct 1921 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Campbell, 106 AD3d 1507, 1509 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002 [2013] ).

2015Although the court’s response was error, inasmuch as a court “must state a particularized reason for [restraining defendant] on the record” even at a bench trial (People v Best, 19 NY3d 739, 743 [2012]), we nevertheless conclude that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the error “did not contribute to the [court’s decision]” on the suppression issue (People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 153 [2011], cert denied 566 US —, 132 S Ct 1921 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Campbell, 106 AD3d 1507, 1509 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1002 [2013] ).

1998Upon consideration of the record as a whole (see, People v Dermon, 237 AD2d 530 ; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114 ), the prosecutor’s remarks constituted an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation and fair comment upon the evidence (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905 ).

1998The prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and were an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905 ; People v Kirkland, 199 AD2d 54, 55 ; People v Wright, 182 AD2d 793 ; People v Pruna, 177 AD2d 519 ; People v Lewis, supra).

1991The prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, including defendant’s own references to the "crack man” at the scene (see, People v Fielding, 158 NY 542 ), and the characterization of defendant’s testimony as a "story” was both within the bounds of rhetorical comment (see, e.g., People v Rivera, 158 AD2d 344 ) and an appropriate response to the defense summation attacking the credibility of all of the People’s witnesses (see, e.g., People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67 ).

1991(See, e.g., People v Fielding, 158 NY 542 .) The trial court did not err in allowing a deliberating juror, in the court’s robing room, and in the presence of defendant and defendant’s counsel, to address the court.

2015While plaintiff’s counsel’s challenged summation remarks were inflammatory and not an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation remarks, which were soundly based upon references to the record, the limited number of inflammatory remarks, along with the court’s curative instructions, do not support a conclusion that defendant was denied a fair trial (see generally Newark v Pimentel, 117 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2014]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2004]).

2015While plaintiff’s counsel’s challenged summation remarks were inflammatory and not an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation remarks, which were soundly based upon references to the record, the limited number of inflammatory remarks, along with the court’s curative instructions, do not support a conclusion that defendant was denied a fair trial (see generally Newark v Pimentel, 117 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2014]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2004]).

2015While plaintiff’s counsel’s challenged summation remarks were inflammatory and not an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation remarks, which were soundly based upon references to the record, the limited number of inflammatory remarks, along with the court’s curative instructions, do not support a conclusion that defendant was denied a fair trial (see generally Newark v Pimentel, 117 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2014]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2004]).

2015While plaintiff’s counsel’s challenged summation remarks were inflammatory and not an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation remarks, which were soundly based upon references to the record, the limited number of inflammatory remarks, along with the court’s curative instructions, do not support a conclusion that defendant was denied a fair trial (see generally Newark v Pimentel, 117 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2014]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2004]).

2004The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

1989Finally, we conclude that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

2004While some of the prosecutor’s remarks would have been better left unsaid, the court sustained the defense objections to most of the challenged comments, and the remaining remarks were fair comment based on the evidence and a proper response to the defense summation (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

1999The People’s summation argument that the police lacked any motive to engage in a “frameup” was a proper response to the defense summation (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 , lv denied 91 NY2d 976 ).

1998The prosecutor’s remarks constituted an appropriate response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Lewis, 175 AD2d 885, 886 ; People v Singleton, 121 AD2d 752, 753 ).

1992The prosecutor expressed no personal opinion with regard to the officer’s veracity, and the comment was a proper response to the defense counsel’s attack on the officer’s credibility (see, People v Sykes, 151 AD2d 523 ; People v Alexandria, 126 AD2d 655 ; People v Singleton, 121 AD2d 752 ).

1998The comments concerning the failure of certain persons to testify constituted an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 ; People v Romanelli, 239 AJD2d 940, lv denied 90 NY2d 910 ).

1994The prosecutor’s statement was a proper response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 ).

1998The prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and were an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905 ; People v Kirkland, 199 AD2d 54, 55 ; People v Wright, 182 AD2d 793 ; People v Pruna, 177 AD2d 519 ; People v Lewis, supra).

1998The prosecutor’s remarks constituted an appropriate response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Lewis, 175 AD2d 885, 886 ; People v Singleton, 121 AD2d 752, 753 ).

1998The prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and were an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905 ; People v Kirkland, 199 AD2d 54, 55 ; People v Wright, 182 AD2d 793 ; People v Pruna, 177 AD2d 519 ; People v Lewis, supra).

1997The prosecutor’s remarks constituted an appropriate response to the defense counsel’s summation and fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 ; People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905 ; People v Pruna, 177 AD2d 519 ).

1996Any impropriety in the reference to tailoring of testimony (People v Gonzalez, 194 AD2d 436 , lv denied 82 NY2d 718 ) would be harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255 ).

1991It is well settled that the prosecutor is allowed appropriate latitude in making closing remarks (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ), and if his remarks have a good faith basis, and can be considered a proper response to the defense summation, they are not a basis for reversal (People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255 , on remand 116 AD2d 919 , cert denied 476 US 1120 ; People v Richards, 78 AD2d 664).

1993Although an officer is entitled to inquire, he is not in our system of justice entitled to a response and may not pursue or seize a person simply because a response to his inquiry has not been forthcoming (see, People v Howard, 50 NY2d 583 , supra; People v Martinez, supra, at 448).

1986This issue requires a consideration of the holding in Howard (supra), a decision, in my opinion, that has been from time to time relied on for propositions that are not in fact set forth in it.

1990Further, the prosecutor’s summation remarks were clearly an appropriate response to defense counsel’s summation remarks (see, People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67 , cert denied 362 US 912 ; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151, 152 ).

1989With respect to the preserved claims, we find that certain comments of the prosecutor were a proper response to the defense counsel’s summation in which he attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by suggesting that they were guilty of "exaggeration” (see, People v Roccaforte, 141 AD2d 775, 776 ; People v Street, 124 AD2d 841 , lv denied 69 NY2d 834 ; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151 , lv denied 68 NY2d 810 ).

1989With respect to the preserved claims, we find that certain comments of the prosecutor were a proper response to the defense counsel’s summation in which he attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by suggesting that they were guilty of "exaggeration” (see, People v Roccaforte, 141 AD2d 775, 776 ; People v Street, 124 AD2d 841 , lv denied 69 NY2d 834 ; People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151 , lv denied 68 NY2d 810 ).

1988In any event, the prosecutor’s summation , in the main was a proper response to the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Street, 124 AD2d 841 , Iv denied 69 NY2d 834 ).

2023In the absence of such information, it would be premature to determine that it was "absolutely necessary" to appoint Qu to interpret her mother's testimony ( id. ).

2021Notably, after the defendant accepted the plea, the court never brought up the issue of changing the defendant's bail status, effectively continuing his release on cash bail without any changes ( see People v Grant , 61 AD3d at 184 ).