Narrative Opinion Summary
The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which convicted her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. The defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the closing argument was deemed unpreserved for appellate review under CPL 470.05 (2) and, even if it had been preserved, did not warrant reversal. Justices Bracken, Thompson, Altman, and Krausman concurred in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Preservation of Issues for Appellate Review under CPL 470.05 (2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found the defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the closing argument to be unpreserved for appellate review, indicating a requirement for issues to be properly preserved at trial to be reviewed on appeal.
Reasoning: The defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the closing argument was deemed unpreserved for appellate review under CPL 470.05 (2) and, even if it had been preserved, did not warrant reversal.
Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims in Closing Argumentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Even if the claim of prosecutorial misconduct had been preserved, the appellate court concluded that it did not warrant reversal of the conviction, suggesting that the alleged misconduct was not sufficiently prejudicial to affect the outcome of the trial.
Reasoning: The defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the closing argument was deemed unpreserved for appellate review under CPL 470.05 (2) and, even if it had been preserved, did not warrant reversal.