People v Canteen (Maurice)

[*1] People v Canteen (Maurice) 2010 NY Slip Op 52351(U) [30 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on October 21, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 21, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and GOLIA, JJ
2007-744 Q CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Maurice Canteen, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Fernando M. Camacho, J.), rendered March 21, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual misconduct.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20). Defendant's contention, that various remarks by the prosecutor during summation were improper and denied him a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review. Defendant did not specifically object to the remarks or made only general objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]), and, where his objections were sustained, defendant failed to request a further curative instruction or move for a mistrial (see People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]). In any event, when considering the challenged remarks, individually or cumulatively, we find that they either constituted fair comment on the evidence or were responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v Whitehurst, 70 AD3d 1057 [2010]; People v Edwards, 63 AD3d 855 [2009]). Moreover, any possible harm was cured by the trial court's charge to the jury (see People v Pocesta, 71 AD3d 920 [2010]). The remarks did not shift the burden of proof or otherwise deprive defendant of a fair trial warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; see People v Williams, 13 AD3d 660 [2004]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. [*2]

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 21, 2010