From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Minkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1995
220 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).


Most of the challenged prosecutor's summation comments are unpreserved as a matter of law due to defendant's failure to object (CPL 470.05; People v. Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, cert denied 482 U.S. 914), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, taken in context, they were appropriate responses to the defense summation ( see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912; People v. Colonna, 135 A.D.2d 724), and within the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, impropriety, if any, by the prosecutor in summation would be harmless ( see, People v. Woodwards, 215 A.D.2d 203; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Minkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 1995
220 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Minkins

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. AL MINKINS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 3, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 15

Citing Cases

Roberts v. Batista

, 279 (2d Dep't) ("The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are…