PEOPLE v. BEGGS (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[3] ) and one count of endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1] ).   On appeal, defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of numerous prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during his opening statement and summation.   However, defendant failed to preserve for our review most of the comments he now asserts were prejudicial and improper (see CPL 470.05[2] ).   Furthermore, the two objections that defendant raised at the appropriate time were merely general objections without a specified basis.   A general objection to a prosecutor's comment at summation without specification of the basis for the objection is insufficient to preserve the issue (see People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839-840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653;  see generally People v. Brazeau, 304 A.D.2d 254, 257, 759 N.Y.S.2d 268, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 389, 796 N.E.2d 481).   In any event, the comments about which defendant now complains “ must be evaluated in light of the defense [counsel's] summation” (People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281;  see People v. Dunbar, 213 A.D.2d 1000, 625 N.Y.S.2d 772, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 972, 629 N.Y.S.2d 732, 653 N.E.2d 628).   In his summation, defense counsel commented on the credibility of the victim and her mother, and the comments of the prosecutor to which defense counsel raised an objection were directly related to those issues.   Thus, the comments of the prosecutor were a fair response to the observations of defense counsel on summation and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. West, 4 A.D.3d 791, 792, 772 N.Y.S.2d 166;  cf. People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564;  People v. Clark, 195 A.D.2d 988, 990-991, 600 N.Y.S.2d 553).

 We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.   The testimony of the young victim established all the elements of the crimes charged.  “Great deference is to be accorded to the [jury's] resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony” (People v. Roman, 17 A.D.3d 1166, 1167, 793 N.Y.S.2d 846).   After weighing the conflicting testimony and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, we conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: