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 v. Leroy Brown

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


April 20, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
LEROY BROWN,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 21, 2008.

People v Brown

Decided on April 20, 2012

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

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.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation (see People v McEathron, 86 AD3d 915, 916; People v Lyon, 77 AD3d 1338, 1339, lv denied 15 NY3d 954). Specifically, defendant either failed to object to the alleged instances of misconduct (see People v Paul, 78 AD3d 1684, 1684-1685, lv denied 16 NY3d 834), or his objections thereto "were merely general objections without a specified basis" (People v Beggs, 19 AD3d 1150, 1151, lv denied 5 NY3d 803; see People v Parks, 66 AD3d 1429, 1430, lv denied 14 NY3d 804; see generally People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912). In any event, defendant's contention is without merit. The majority of the comments in question were within " the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible' " during summations (People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1059, 1061, affd 8 NY3d 854, quoting People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399), and they were "either a fair response to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence" (McEathron, 86 AD3d at 916 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor's comments were beyond those bounds, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial" (id.).

Entered: April 20, 2012

Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20120420

© 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.