Opinion
November 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.).
Defendant's motion for a mistrial was properly denied, since any prejudice caused by the comment that may have suggested that defendant had intimidated witnesses was dissipated by the court's prompt and pointed instructions to the jury to disregard it ( see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 111; compare, People v Trinidad, 59 N.Y.2d 820). Moreover, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there is no reasonable possibility that this isolated comment affected the verdict ( see, People v Brown, 208 A.D.2d 414, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 906). The other challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were within the bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments and responsive to defense counsel's summation ( see, People v Johnson, 205 A.D.2d 309, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 827).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.