People v Scott

People v Scott 2012 NY Slip Op 06826 Decided on October 10, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 10, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2009-00577
(Ind. No. 6196/07)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Stephen Scott, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of
counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Jordan
W. Rossman of counsel; James
Tuomey on the brief), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Konviser, J.), rendered December 17, 2008, 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 regarding allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), as the defendant either failed to object to the challenged comments or made only a general objection (see People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642). In any event, the challenged remarks were not improper, since they constituted fair comment on the evidence, were a fair response to the defense summation (see People v Colon, 45 AD3d 776; People v Urena, 24 AD3d 693), or were harmless, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the allegedly improper comments contributed to the defendant's convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce expert testimony concerning the customs and practices of street gangs, is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the expert testimony was properly admitted as probative of the defendant's motive for shooting and killing the victim (see People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977; People v Avila, 303 AD2d 165).
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court