People v Boyce
2008 NY Slip Op 07254 [54 AD3d 1052]
September 30, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, October 29, 2008


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Nicholas Boyce, Appellant.

[*1]Ellen E. Edwards, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.),rendered October 11, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in permitting the People to offer certain testimony on its rebuttal case. In the exerciseof its discretion, a trial court may permit either party to offer evidence on rebuttal which is nottechnically of a rebuttal nature but, more properly, a part of the offering party's original case(see CPL 260.30 [7]; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 248 [1987]; People vJames, 285 AD2d 561 [2001]).

The defendant's contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during hissummation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, asthe defendant either did not object to the remarks at issue or made only general objections, or hisobjections were sustained without any further request for curative instructions and he failed tomove for a mistrial (see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Osorio,49 AD3d 562 [2008]; People v Muniz, 44 AD3d 1074 [2007]). In any event, the[*2]challenged remarks did not exceed the bounds of rhetoricalcomment permissible in closing argument (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399[1981]), constituted fair response to comments made during the defense counsel's summation, orwere fair comment on the evidence (see People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562 [2008];People v Muniz, 44 AD3d 1074 [2007]).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Covello andLeventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.