Opinion
2001-10565.
Decided January 26, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered November 19, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, promoting prostitution in the second degree, and promoting prostitution in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Traci R. Wilkerson of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DANIEL F. LUCIANO and REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, questions and remarks by the prosecutor during voir dire, opening, and cross examination were fair comment on the evidence, or within the bounds of permissible rhetoric ( see People v. Adamo, 309 A.D.2d 808; People v. Mejias, 296 A.D.2d 583; People v. Vasquez, 287 A.D.2d 584; People v. Etoria, 266 A.D.2d 559).
While the prosecutor's references to religion during summation were improper, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Ivory, 307 A.D.2d 1000, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 643; People v. Anderson, 304 A.D.2d 450, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 592; People v. Taylor, 162 A.D.2d 175). Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the remainder of the prosecutor's comments on summation were fair comment on the evidence or within the bounds of permissible rhetoric.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.