PEOPLE v. CRESPO

The trial court properly allowed the police testimony regarding defendant's uncharged drug sales immediately preceding the charged sale, since its probative value, i.e., to provide a complete and coherent narrative of the offense, including an explanation of why the police targeted defendant (People v Grant, 181 A.D.2d 579; see, People v Rivera, 186 A.D.2d 504, 505), outweighed any prejudicial effect to defendant.

The prosecutor's summation was a fair response to defense arguments and did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399). The prosecutor's comments properly reflected the proof adduced at trial (People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.