Citation Numbers: 15 A.D.3d 224, 791 N.Y.S.2d 2, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1279
Filed Date: 2/8/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe defendant, and he provided a detailed and accurate description.
The court properly instructed the jury not to perform a contrived, unsupervised experiment, seeking to re-create the relative positioning of defendant and the victim during the crime, which was suggested by defense counsel in summation (see People v Stanley, 87 NY2d 1000 [1996]; People v Blunt, 273 AD2d 146 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 850 [2000]).
Although the prosecutor’s summation reference to a police photograph was improper, the court sustained an objection and issued a strong curative instruction that prevented any prejudice. The other summation remarks challenged on appeal were fair comment based upon the evidence (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.