People v. O'Diah
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to seek a curative instruction or move for a mistrial with respect to the one challenged comment to which he objected, and he failed to object to the other challenged comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Gregory, 55 AD3d 752 [2008]; People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652 [2003]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, responsive to the defense counsel’s summation, or not so…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. GallowayNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. MorrisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- People v. HolguinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- People v. NievesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. ClantonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010