| People v Joubert |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00907 [125 AD3d 686] |
| February 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Phillip Joubert, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Alexis A. Ascher of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kron, J.), rendered December 15, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the firstdegree (two counts), sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), and endangeringthe welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of false confessions because theproposed testimony was not relevant to the specific circumstances of this case (see People v Bedessie, 19NY3d 147, 161 [2012]; People v Rosario, 100 AD3d 660, 661 [2012]; People v Mutterperl, 97 AD3d699, 700 [2012]).
The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor duringsummation deprived him of a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review, sincehe either failed to object to the remarks at issue, made only a general objection, or failedto request further curative relief or move for a mistrial when his objections weresustained, and his motion for a mistrial, which did not identify all the specific errors heasserts on appeal, was untimely (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Philips, 120 AD3d1266, 1268 [2014]; Peoplev Allen, 114 AD3d 958, 959 [2014]; People v Hoke, 111 AD3d 959, 960 [2013]). In any event,the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, fair response to the defensesummation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]), or were not so flagrant or pervasive as todeny the defendant a fair trial (see People v Rhodes, 115 AD3d 681, 682-683 [2014]; People v Fields, 115 AD3d673, 674 [2014]; People vJorgensen, 113 AD3d 793, 795 [2014]). To the extent that any prejudicial effectmay have resulted from any of the challenged remarks, it was ameliorated by the court'sinstructions (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d at 399; People v Safian, 46NY2d 181, 190 [1978]; People v Jorgensen, 113 AD3d at 795; People vRobinson, 159 AD2d 598 [1990]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Miller and Maltese, JJ.,concur.