People v. Conethan

Decision Date21 February 1989
Citation147 A.D.2d 654,538 N.Y.S.2d 56
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William CONETHAN, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Kenneth Esrick, Staten Island, for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Janet Berk, of counsel; Irwin Weiss, on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, KOOPER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 7, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting photographs of the park where the robbery allegedly occurred (see, People v. Bell, 63 N.Y.2d 796, 481 N.Y.S.2d 324, 471 N.E.2d 137; People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637, cert. denied 416 U.S. 905, 94 S.Ct. 1609, 40 L.Ed.2d 110; People v. Carini, 139 A.D.2d 753, 527 N.Y.S.2d 502, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 916, 532 N.Y.S.2d 850, 529 N.E.2d 180; People v. Parsons, 112 A.D.2d 250, 491 N.Y.S.2d 699). As the Court of Appeals has observed, "[p]hotographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant" (People v. Pobliner, supra, 32 N.Y.2d at 370, 345 N.Y.S.2d 482, 298 N.E.2d 637; see also, People v. Corbett, 68 A.D.2d 772, 418 N.Y.S.2d 699, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 714, 436 N.Y.S.2d 273, 417 N.E.2d 567; Richardson, Evidence § 131 [Prince 10th ed] ). The photographs in question, which depict the park where the robbery occurred and other locations where the complainant observed the defendant--both before and after the robbery--were admitted to clarify the complainant's testimony and were neither inflammatory nor calculated to arouse the prejudice of the jury.

Finally, defense counsel objected to only one comment of the prosecutor during his summation. That objection was implicitly sustained by the trial court, which then provided an immediate curative instruction. Since defense counsel did not seek further curative instructions or move for a mistrial, any error in this regard has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Walters, 116 A.D.2d 757, 497 N.Y.S.2d 943, lv. denied 67...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Arrocha
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 5, 1989
    ...73 N.Y.2d 955, 540 N.Y.S.2d 997, 538 N.E.2d 349; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Conethan, App.Div., 538 N.Y.S.2d 56; People v. Rivera, 142 A.D.2d 615, 530 N.Y.S.2d 270, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 1049, 534 N.Y.S.2d 948, 531 N.E.2d 668; People v. ......
  • People v. Fenner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 13, 1990
    ...evidence, it is clear that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by virtue of the prosecutor's remarks (see, People v. Conethan, 147 A.D.2d 654, 538 N.Y.S.2d 56). We also find the defendant's claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel to be without meri......
  • People v. Collier
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 21, 1989

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT