From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Choung

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 1996
229 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.).


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress his inculpatory statements. The hearing record amply supports the court's determination that the defendant voluntarily made the statements after acknowledging and waiving his rights ( see, People v. Rose, 204 A.D.2d 745), and we discern no basis for disturbing the court's rejection of the defendant's claim that the statements were the product of physical abuse ( see, People v. Pacheco, 168 A.D.2d 465). The defendant's additional claim of coercion was not advanced in the hearing court and therefore is not properly before us ( see, People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v. Duran, 182 A.D.2d 828). In addition, the defendant may not rely upon the trial record in challenging the propriety of the hearing court's determination ( see, People v. Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408; People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010; People v Hucks, 175 A.D.2d 213).

The defendant further contends that he was denied a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. However, most of the challenged remarks have not been preserved for appellate review since the defendant either failed to object to them or failed to seek any further relief when his objections were sustained and curative instructions were given by the court ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Johnson, 185 A.D.2d 247; People v. Kresberg, 183 A.D.2d 786). Moreover, those remarks which have been preserved constituted fair comment on the trial evidence or appropriate responses to the defense summation ( see, People v. Ventura, 171 A.D.2d 553; People v. Stanley, 163 A.D.2d 435; People v. Sykes, 151 A.D.2d 523; People v. Boyajian, 148 A.D.2d 740).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit ( see, People v. Miller, 106 A.D.2d 787). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Choung

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 1996
229 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Choung

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KWANG YOUNG CHOUNG…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 8, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 84