Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 1, 2000

272 A.D.2d 338; 708 N.Y.S.2d 302; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Matthews (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
People v. Flowers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Flowers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Barton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Barton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Bowen-Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Bowen-Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Stiff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Maldonado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Barker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Howe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered February 20, 1997, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor made improper statements on summation, including commenting on his decision not to testify. These contentions are unpreserved for ap*339pellate review since the defendant failed to make timely and specific objections during the prosecutor’s summation (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Mapp, 245 AD2d 307; People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538). In any event, many, if not all, of the prosecutor’s comments were a fair response to the statements contained in the defense counsel’s summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Miller, 220 AD2d 778; People v Stith, 215 AD2d 789; People v Cox, 161 AD2d 724, 725; People v Jakes, 181 AD2d 913). Any prejudice to the defendant caused by these comments was dissipated by the court’s instructions to the jury (see, People v Thomas, 147 AD2d 725; People v Rivera, 142 AD2d 614, 615). Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, to the extent any remarks were improper, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Dardain, 226 AD2d 551; People v Roccaforte, 141 AD2d 775, 776). Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.