Summary
holding that arrest photograph which, according to the undercover officer, depicted the defendant wearing the same red hooded jacket that he wore when he sold the drugs to the officer, was admissible "to establish the defendant's appearance at the time of arrest"
Summary of this case from Dey v. ScullyOpinion
November 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the admission of his arrest photograph along with the testimony of the undercover officer that the photograph depicted the defendant wearing the same red hooded jacket that he wore when he sold the drugs to the officer did not constitute improper bolstering of the officer's identification testimony. The photograph was admissable to establish the defendant's appearance at the time of the arrest (see, People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v Santana, 162 A.D.2d 191; People v Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397; People v Peters, 135 A.D.2d 841).
Further, we find that the prosecutor's summation remarks generally constituted a fair response to the defendant's theory of defense (see, People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179). Any improper remarks do not warrant a reversal of the defendant's conviction (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.