From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 2001
281 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 15, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered May 28, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, filing a false return for personal income and earnings tax and petit larceny, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 5 years probation and a conditional discharge, together with 200 hours of community service and payment of a fine and restitution, unanimously affirmed.

Amyjane Rettew, for respondent.

David Cooper, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli, Friedman, JJ.


By failing to object, by making general objections, or by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve her contentions regarding the prosecutor's questions during cross-examination and comments on summation (People v. Feliciano, 235 A.D.2d 207, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1 092), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the prosecutor's questions and remarks were responsive to defendant's direct testimony and defense counsel's summation comments (People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 142, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976).

The court's main charge, viewed as a whole, conveyed the appropriate legal standards with respect to the elements of the crimes (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817). The court's instruction on the effect of mistake of law on liability (Penal Law § 15.20) was warranted by matters contained in defendant's testimony and summation. We note that the remaining portions of the charge challenged by defendant on appeal conveyed essentially the same information contained in defendant's requests to charge (cf., People v. Chesler, 50 N.Y.2d 203, 210). Defendant's challenge to the court's supplemental charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's response was meaningful.


Summaries of

People v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 2001
281 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Rogers

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JOANNA ROGERS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 15, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 533

Citing Cases

Simpson v. Portuondo

See also, e.g., People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324, 428 N.Y.S.2d 914, 923 (1980) (challenges to…

Mobley v. Kirkpatrick

Under New York law, in order to preserve an issue for appeal, a contemporaneous, specific objection must be…