People v. Hernandez
| Citation | 11 A.D.3d 479,782 N.Y.S.2d 776,2004 NY Slip Op 07193 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2001-03613. |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS HERNANDEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's requests for a mistrial. The decision whether to grant a request for a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292 [1981]), which is in the best position to determine if it is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial (see People v Cooper, 173 AD2d 551, 552 [1991]). Specifically, the defense counsel objected before the police officer could testify regarding certain evidence ruled inadmissible, thus, no mistrial was warranted on that basis. Further, although one of the People's witnesses testified that the defendant was armed with a baseball bat because he was going to a gang fight, the Supreme Court struck the testimony, gave an immediate curative instruction, and, upon the defendant's motion for a mistrial, gave further curative instructions (see People v Joyner, 295 AD2d 625 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 730 [2002]). Under the circumstances, the motion was properly denied.
The defendant's contention that prosecutorial misconduct during summation constituted reversible error is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor's comments were fair comment on the evidence, fair response to the defense counsel's arguments upon summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), or do not require reversal (see People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 837 [1985]).
Finally, the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial because the Supreme Court did not give an interested-witness charge is without merit. The charge as a whole, which included the instruction that the jury could consider the bias or prejudice of any witness in assessing credibility, was sufficient under the circumstances of this case (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 659 [1994]; People v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Joseph
...People v. Hardy, 134 A.D.3d 955, 957, 22 N.Y.S.3d 128 ; People v. Quezada, 116 A.D.3d 796, 797, 983 N.Y.S.2d 326 ; People v. Hernandez, 11 A.D.3d 479, 782 N.Y.S.2d 776 ). Any prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's reference to the defendant's gang membership was alleviated by the Supreme......
-
People v. Hernandez
...legal sufficiency or weight of the evidence of depraved indifference murder. This Court affirmed the conviction (see People v. Hernandez, 11 A.D.3d 479, 782 N.Y.S.2d 776 ). The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on November 17, 2004 (see People v. Hernandez, 3 N.Y.3d 757, 788 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
People v. Williams
...the jury, the overall charge is sufficiently balanced ( see People v. McCray, 204 A.D.2d at 491, 614 N.Y.S.2d 166; People v. Hernandez, 11 A.D.3d 479, 480, 782 N.Y.S.2d 776; People v. Holly, 184 A.D.2d 581, 586 N.Y.S.2d 760). Here, where the court instructed the jury that, in assessing witn......
-
People v. Patel
...(see People v. Martin, 100 A.D.3d at 930, 953 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; People v. Vines, 51 A.D.3d at 828, 859 N.Y.S.2d 661 ; People v. Hernandez, 11 A.D.3d 479, 782 N.Y.S.2d 776 ).93 N.Y.S.3d 703 In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL ......