PEOPLE v. DEMIRDJIAN, 134 A.D.3d 403 (2015)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20151201309
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2015
Summary: Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are entirely unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The remarks at issue were generally based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, constituting fair responses to defense counsel's summation arguments, and there was nothing so egregious as to warrant a new trial ( see People v Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d
Summary: Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are entirely unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The remarks at issue were generally based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, constituting fair responses to defense counsel's summation arguments, and there was nothing so egregious as to warrant a new trial ( see People v Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d ..
More
Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation are entirely unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The remarks at issue were generally based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, constituting fair responses to defense counsel's summation arguments, and there was nothing so egregious as to warrant a new trial (see People v Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884 [1993]). In any event, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 [1975]).
We have considered and rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel arguments, including those raised in his pro se brief (see People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [1984]).
Source: Leagle
