670 N.Y.S.2d 157 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1998
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the prosecutor violated Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling and that his motion for a mistrial therefore should have been granted. We disagree. The cross-examination of defendant concerning the statement he gave to the police before he was convicted in 1992 did not violate the court’s Sandoval ruling, and the prosecutor did not question defendant concerning the underlying facts of that conviction. In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the prosecutor violated the Sandoval ruling in that respect, defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial {see, CPL 280.10).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of a police investigator
Defendant’s contention that prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and on summation warrants reversal has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 316). In any event, the isolated incidents of misconduct by the prosecutor did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77, Iv denied 63 NY2d 711; see also, People v Smith, 198 AD2d 187, 188, Iv denied 83 NY2d 810). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.)