People v Miller
2013 NY Slip Op 01717 [104 AD3d 1223]
March 15, 2013
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 24, 2013


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJoshua M. Miller, Appellant.

[*1]Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel),for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.),rendered November 13, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofdriving while intoxicated, a class D felony.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict offelony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3];1193 [1] [c] [ii]), defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by theprosecutor's comments on summation, including a statement that defense counsel wastrying to "divert [the jury's] attention away from the truth." Although the prosecutor'sstatement was improper (see People v Paul, 229 AD2d 932, 933 [1996];People v Carter, 227 AD2d 661, 663 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1067[1996]; People v Dunbar, 213 AD2d 1000, 1000 [1995], lv denied 85NY2d 972 [1995]), that isolated comment did not deprive defendant of a fair trial(see People v Santiago, 289 AD2d 1070, 1071 [2001], lv denied 97NY2d 761 [2002]; People v Chislum, 244 AD2d 944, 945 [1997], lvdenied 91 NY2d 924 [1998]; see generally People v Scott, 60 AD3d 1483, 1484[2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 859 [2009]; People v Roman, 13 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2004], lvdenied 4 NY3d 802 [2005]). Furthermore, a prosecutor's closing statement must beevaluated in light of defense counsel's summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d819, 821 [1993]; People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255, 259 [1985]), and we concludethat the remainder of the prosecutor's comments at issue were "a fair response to defensecounsel's summation and did not exceed the bounds of legitimate advocacy" (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see generally Halm,81 NY2d at 821). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen,JJ.


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.