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. Paris PERKINS, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered October 4, 1994, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place as a result of the prosecutor's comments during summation, in which the prosecutor, among other things, indicated that there was more than one gun present at the time of the commission of the crime and that defendant's motive for being in the victim's apartment was to steal guns. We disagree.
The prosecutor acted improperly in disobeying the trial court's directive not to make such statements in summation. Nevertheless, reversal is not warranted since the remarks should have been permitted as fair comment on the evidence (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Torres, 222 A.D.2d 720, 636 N.Y.S.2d 660; People v. Switzer, 115 A.D.2d 673, 674, 496 N.Y.S.2d 507). In the defendant's own videotaped statement, he stated that there was more than one gun in a duffle bag in the victim's apartment, that he had taken one of these guns out, and that, after the shooting, he replaced the gun in the bag, grabbed the bag, and ran.
The defendant's remaining challenges to remarks made by the prosecutor in summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL, 470.05[2]; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885), and, in any event, without merit (see, People v. Galloway, supra; People v. Ashwal, supra; People v. Torres, supra).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: May 12, 1997
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)