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. Matthew RODNEY, also known as Benjamin Antonio, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered November 20, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the prosecutor to present him as a threatening figure, and aided the prosecutor in doing so, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). The defendant's objections were general, one-word objections (see People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d at 839–840; People v. Salnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874), and he failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained his objections (see People v. Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112; People v. Salnave, 41 AD3d at 874). Moreover, his belated motion for a mistrial did not give the trial court the opportunity to remedy the alleged errors (see People v. Salnave, 41 AD3d at 874; People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648, 649). In any event, a new trial is not warranted. We agree with the defendant that the prosecutor made two improper comments on summation, one comment denigrating the defense and the other inflammatory. We further agree that evidence that the defendant possessed a gun clip roughly two months after the murder, which was not ruled on at the pretrial hearing, was improperly admitted. However, the cumulative effect of these errors was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the errors contributed to his convictions (see People v. Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 467; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242).
The defendant's remaining contention is 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: June 13, 2012
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)