Opinion
2012-06-13
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Matthew RODNEY, also known as Benjamin Antonio, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Suzanne H. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Suzanne H. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered November 20, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the prosecutor to present him as a threatening figure, and aided the prosecutor in doing so, is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653;People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ). The defendant's objections were general, one-word objections ( see People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d at 839–840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653;People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657), and he failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained his objections ( see People v. Bajana, 82 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 919 N.Y.S.2d 194; People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d at 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657). Moreover, his belated motion for a mistrial did not give the trial court the opportunity to remedy the alleged errors ( see People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d at 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657;People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648, 649, 523 N.Y.S.2d 883). In any event, a new trial is not warranted. We agree with the defendant that the prosecutor made two improper comments on summation, one comment denigrating the defense and the other inflammatory. We further agree that evidence that the defendant possessed a gun clip roughly two months after the murder, which was not ruled on at the pretrial hearing, was improperly admitted. However, the cumulative effect of these errors was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the errors contributed to his convictions ( see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 467, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919;People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.