Opinion ID: 147061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to object to summation remarks

Text: Bierenbaum faults his trial counsel for failing to object when the prosecution argued in summation that Bierenbaum allowed an argument to get explosive and choked Katz as he had done before, only this time to her death. [4] He argues that the statements invited the jury to consider the 1983 choking incident as evidence of propensity, and that there was no evidence that Katz died by strangulation or that Bierenbaum stood over her as she died. Although trial counsel made no contemporaneous objection to the summation, before the jury was charged he moved for a mistrial on this and other grounds. [5] The trial court denied the motion, finding that the prosecution had not argued propensity, but that the incident was probative of other issues in the case, particularly intent. The trial court also thereafter advised the jury: ... I have allowed the People to introduce evidence that on another occasion this defendant committed a prior, what we call legally []bad act,[] to wit, the strangling of Gail Katz Bierenbaum to unconsciousness and that was allowed in for certain limiting purposes and I want to make that very clear, as I did at the time such evidence was admitted. The fact that this defendant allegedly committed a prior bad act is no proof whatsoever that he possessed a propensity or disposition to commit the crime charged in this indictment or any other crime. It is not offered for such a purpose and it must not be considered by you for such a purpose. Instead the People were allowed to offer such evidence or introduce such evidence solely ... as probative of or relevant to or to demonstrate defendant[']s intent[]as they claim[]to murder Gail Katz Bierenbaum... as probative of his identity as the person they claim committed the murder and when they summed up to you and made their arguments, I allowed those arguments on those points. Trial Tr. vol. IV, 3267-68. Bierenbaum's counsel explained that he was concerned that a contemporaneous objection would have prompted the trial court to sum up in favor of the prosecution, in other words, to highlight for the jury the argument that counsel found objectionable. The strategy was a reasonable one, given that the trial court would have provided a limiting instruction along the lines of the one given in the charge. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court's cautionary instructions about the prior assault evidence were legally satisfactory and adequately protected Bierenbaum's right to a fair trial. Bierenbaum, 748 N.Y.S.2d at 583.