Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Donald JONES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered December 8, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims that the prosecutor conducted improper cross-examinations and an improper summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In the few instances when the defendant did object, he either made only general objections or failed to request a curative instruction when an objection was sustained (see People v. Aponte, 28 A.D.3d 672, 813 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Haripersaud, 24 A.D.3d 468, 469, 806 N.Y.S.2d 221; People v. Portalatin, 18 A.D.3d 673, 674, 795 N.Y.S.2d 334). In any event, to the extent that any of the questioning or comments made during summation were improper, any error was harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Colon, 43 A.D.3d 951, 842 N.Y.S.2d 39; People v. Love, 37 A.D.3d 618, 619, 830 N.Y.S.2d 723; People v. Frazier, 35 A.D.3d 759, 759-760, 825 N.Y.S.2d 780).
The defendant's challenge in his supplemental pro se brief to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 18, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)