From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 24, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination concerning the defendant's use of illegal drugs. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) and, in any event, under the circumstances of this case it lacks merit.

The defendant contends further that various comments made by the prosecutor during summation also deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We have considered the comments to which the defendant objects and find that most were fair response to the defense counsel's summation or constituted fair comment on the evidence (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Miller, 143 A.D.2d 1055). When instructions were warranted, the court directed the jury to disregard any improper remark (see, People v. Galloway, supra).

Finally, the jury charge, taken in its entirety, adequately conveyed the correct rules for the jury to apply in arriving at its verdict (People v. Vera, 94 A.D.2d 728, 729). Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN ORTIZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Rodriguez

The nature and extent of the sanction to be imposed for losing evidence depends upon the degree of the…