From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 16, 2008
54 A.D.3d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 4049.

September 16, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), rendered October 16, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Peter Theis of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Jessica Slutsky of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Miller, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

With one exception, the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). With respect to the only preserved issue, the court clearly instructed the jury that the burden of proof remained with the People and did not shift to the defendant ( see People v Farino, 21 AD3d 427). In any event, as to the unpreserved issues, the challenged remarks either were a fair response to the defendant's summation ( see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), or constituted harmless error ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242; People v Adam, 50 AD3d 1153, lv denied 10 NY3d 931).


Summaries of

People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 16, 2008
54 A.D.3d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JASON GRANT, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 16, 2008

Citations

54 A.D.3d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 6876
863 N.Y.S.2d 377

Citing Cases

Grant v. Smith

With respect to the preserved issue, the Appellate Division held that the trial court "clearly instructed the…

People v. Morrison

The defendant's claims that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor made improper remarks during…