Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Alvin Peterson

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


January 31, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
ALVIN PETERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People v Peterson

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 31, 2012

Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered April 12, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor's summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see generally 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]), and the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motions directed at the prosecutor's summation. Although defendant claims that the prosecutor engaged in improper bolstering or vouching for police witnesses, the remarks at issue were permissible responses to defense attacks on the officers' credibility (see e.g. People v Rivera, 223 AD2d 445 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 883 [1996], People v Ortiz, 217 AD2d 425 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 799 [1995]). Although the prosecutor made some inappropriate attacks on a defense witness's credibility, there was nothing so egregious as to warrant reversal. Under the circumstances of the case, the fact that defendant was acquitted of all felony charges is a strong indication that the challenged remarks did not cause any prejudice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 31, 2012

CLERK

20120131

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.