People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 03 August 2010 |
| Citation | 76 A.D.3d 532,904 N.Y.S.2d 911 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Glendon BROWN, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
76 A.D.3d 532
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Glendon BROWN, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 3, 2010.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garvin of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Bruce Alderman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), rendered June 26, 2007, convicting him of rape in the second degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. The decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial ( see
Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243, 250, 481 N.Y.S.2d 657, 471 N.E.2d 429; People v. Way, 69 A.D.3d 964, 965, 893 N.Y.S.2d 265; People v. Hernandez, 11 A.D.3d 479, 782 N.Y.S.2d 776; People v. Knorr, 284 A.D.2d 411, 412, 728 N.Y.S.2d 169). Here, while the challenged testimony was improper ( see generally People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d 460, 464-465, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919; People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 856, 858, 644 N.Y.S.2d 484, 666 N.E.2d 1357; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286), any prejudice resulting therefrom was alleviated by the trial court's actions in immediately striking the testimony from the record and providing a curative instruction to the jury ( see People v. Way, 69 A.D.3d at 965, 893 N.Y.S.2d 265; People v. Benloss, 60 A.D.3d 686, 687, 874 N.Y.S.2d 558; People v. Lockhart, 220 A.D.2d 690, 691, 632 N.Y.S.2d 656).PRUDENTI, P.J., RIVERA, SANTUCCI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alexander
...to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial’ " ( People v. Redmon, 81 A.D.3d 752, 752, 917 N.Y.S.2d 229, quoting People v. Brown, 76 A.D.3d 532, 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; see People v. Hodge, 154 A.D.3d 963, 964–965, 63 N.Y.S.3d 448 ). Such decision is entitled to great deference on appe......
-
People v. Ransom
... ... In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion (see People v. Licausi, 122 A.D.3d 771, 773, 996 N.Y.S.2d 188 ; People v. Reaves, 112 A.D.3d 746, 747748, 976 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; 97 N.Y.S.3d 285 People v. Brown, 76 A.D.3d 532, 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 911 ; People v. Arena, 70 A.D.3d 1044, 10461047, 895 N.Y.S.2d 514 ).The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting clarification is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Clark, 28 N.Y.3d 556, 566, ... ...
-
People v. DeCampoamor
... ... Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079, 1081, 462 N.Y.S.2d 639, 449 N.E.2d 419). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a witness's reference to the defendant being on parole ( see People v. Brown, 76 A.D.3d 532, 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 911). During a sidebar conference, the prosecutor represented that this reference was to the defendant's release on immigration parole, and not parole from prison. The Supreme Court suggested that the prosecutor ask a clarifying question. The defendant did not ... ...
-
People v. Redmon
...best position to determine if this drastic remedy is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial" ( People v. Brown, 76 A.D.3d 532, 533, 904 N.Y.S.2d 911; see People v. Way, 69 A.D.3d 964, 965, 893 N.Y.S.2d 265). Here, while the challenged testimony was improper (see generall......