People v. Allen
| Decision Date | 12 November 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Brandon O. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 1521
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Brandon O. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Nov. 12, 2010.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Grazina Myers of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[2] ), defendant contends that the police lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that he was driving and thus that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized as a result of that illegal stop. We reject defendant's contention. The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, based on the description of the vehicle that was broadcast over the police radio, the proximity of the vehicle to the area where the robbery had occurred, and the fact that the stop was close in time to the commission of the robbery ( see People v. Faller, 19 A.D.3d 138, 139, 796 N.Y.S.2d 349, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 828, 804 N.Y.S.2d 42, 837 N.E.2d 741; People v. Schwing, 14 A.D.3d 867, 868, 787 N.Y.S.2d 715; People v. McFadden, 244 A.D.2d 887, 888, 665 N.Y.S.2d 985).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the testimony of a police officer that defendant was driving a vehicle previously "involved in a couple robberies." We reject that contention. When defense counsel objected to that testimony, the court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. It is well settled that "the jury is presumed to have followed" that curative instruction ( People v. Woods, 60 A.D.3d 1493, 1494, 876 N.Y.S.2d 285, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 922, 884 N.Y.S.2d 703, 912 N.E.2d 1084; see People v. Cruz, 272 A.D.2d 922, 923, 709 N.Y.S.2d 717, affd. 96 N.Y.2d 857, 730 N.Y.S.2d 29, 754 N.E.2d 1112), and we thus conclude that any prejudice resulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fields
...(see People v. Argyris, 99 A.D.3d 808, 810, 952 N.Y.S.2d 254, affd. 24 N.Y.3d 1138, 3 N.Y.S.3d 711, 27 N.E.3d 425 ; People v. Allen, 78 A.D.3d 1521, 1521, 911 N.Y.S.2d 528 ; People v. Fleming, 65 A.D.3d 702, 703, 884 N.Y.S.2d 477 ; People v. Jogie, 51 A.D.3d 1038, 1039, 858 N.Y.S.2d 386 ). ......
-
People v. Tyra
...1084; see People v. Cruz, 272 A.D.2d 922, 923, 709 N.Y.S.2d 717, affd. 96 N.Y.2d 857, 730 N.Y.S.2d 29, 754 N.E.2d 1112; People v. Allen, 78 A.D.3d 1521, 911 N.Y.S.2d 528). Thus, any prejudice resulting from that statement was thereby adequately alleviated ( see Allen, 78 A.D.3d 1521, 911 N.......
-
People v. Mercado-Ramos
...notes indicating that it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on two of the counts, the court responded appropriately by providing a full Allen charge and instructing the jury to continue deliberating (see People v. Hardy, 26 N.Y.3d 245, 251–252, 22 N.Y.S.3d 377, 43 N.E.3d 734 [2015] ; P......
-
People v. Hunt
...30 N.Y.3d 1104, 77 N.Y.S.3d 3, 101 N.E.3d 389 [2018] ), which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v. Allen, 78 A.D.3d 1521, 1521, 911 N.Y.S.2d 528 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 827, 921 N.Y.S.2d 191, 946 N.E.2d 179 [2011] ). Defendant further contends that he was denie......