People v. Harris
Opinion of the Court
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion made after the prosecutor’s summation. To the extent that the prosecutor’s comments may be viewed as commenting on defendant’s exercise of his right to a trial, the court’s prompt curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]). Defendant’s remaining challenges to the summation do not warrant reversal (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], Iv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], Iv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).
Defendant’s Confrontation Clause claim is unpreserved (see e.g. People v Lopez, 25 AD3d 385 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 758 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the document at issue was not testimonial (see People v Freycinet, 11 NY3d 38 [2008]; People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136 [2008]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Defendant’s argument concerning the mandatory surcharge and fees is unavailing (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [2009]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.