Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

People v. Holguin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 4, 2001

284 A.D.2d 343; 725 N.Y.S.2d 572; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5596

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Roseboro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Tavarez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Lopez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Blas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Valerio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Pujji (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Rudd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. O'Diah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Hutson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Pearson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Evans (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 (Greenberg, J.), rendered October 13, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that alleged improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation warrant reversal of his conviction. The summation must be examined in the context of that delivered by opposing counsel and is proper if it is responsive to arguments and issues raised by the defense (see, People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513, affd 85 NY2d 872; People v Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 664). Additionally, a prosecutor may engage in fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543; People v Shepherd, 176 AD2d 369, 370). The prosecutor’s remarks during summation did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment allowed in closing argument (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Harris, 209 AD2d 432). Rather, the challenged remarks constituted either fair comment on the evidence presented (see, People v Swindall, 128 AD2d 819) or fair response to the defense summation (see, People v Irving, 265 AD2d 575, 576).

*344The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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