People v. Douglas, 64 A.D.3d 726

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 885-886 [1991]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642 [1986]; People v Arroyo, 309 AD2d 870, 871 [2003]). In any event, the challenged comments were either fair comment on the evidence or responsive to the defense counsel‘s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Maldonado, 55 AD3d 626, 627-628 [2008]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury‘s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Miller, Covello and Austin, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Douglas

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Jul 21, 2009

Citations: 64 A.D.3d 726; 881 N.Y.S.2d 903

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.