People v. Holland

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation248 A.D.2d 636,670 N.Y.S.2d 534
Parties, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2786 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jonathon HOLLAND, Appellant.
Decision Date23 March 1998

Page 534

670 N.Y.S.2d 534
248 A.D.2d 636, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 2786
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Jonathon HOLLAND, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
March 23, 1998.

Page 535

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (William B. Carney, of counsel), for Appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Monique Ferrell, of counsel), for Respondent.

Before COPERTINO, J.P., and ALTMAN, FLORIO and LUCIANO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Delury, J.), rendered January 11, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Generally, the principles of double jeopardy will bar a retrial when a mistrial is granted over the defendant's objection or without his or her consent, unless the mistrial is granted "as the product of manifest necessity" (Matter of Davis v. Brown, 87 N.Y.2d 626, 630, 641 N.Y.S.2d 819, 664 N.E.2d 884; see, People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 388, 502 N.Y.S.2d 972, 494 N.E.2d 77; Matter of Enright v. Siedlecki, 59 N.Y.2d 195, 199-200, 464 N.Y.S.2d 418, 451 N.E.2d 176; Matter of Rubenfeld v. Appelman, 230 A.D.2d 911, 646 N.Y.S.2d 879; Matter of Cohen v. Hanophy, 210 A.D.2d 327, 620 N.Y.S.2d 293). "Although the trial court's view as to the necessity for discharging the jury is entitled to deference, its discretion is not unlimited (see, e.g., Matter of Enright v. Siedlecki, 59 N.Y.2d, at p. 200 [464 N.Y.S.2d 418, 451 N.E.2d 176], supra; People v. Michael, 48 N.Y.2d 1, 9 [420 N.Y.S.2d 371, 394 N.E.2d 1134]). The court has a duty to consider alternatives to a mistrial and to obtain enough information so that it is clear that a mistrial is actually necessary (see, e.g., United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 487 [91 S.Ct. 547, 558, 27 L.Ed.2d 543]; Hall v. Potoker, 49 N.Y.2d 501, 505 [427 N.Y.S.2d 211, 403 N.E.2d 1210])" (People v. Ferguson, supra, at 388, 502 N.Y.S.2d 972, 494 N.E.2d 77; see, People v. Niccolich, 220 A.D.2d 461, 462, 631 N.Y.S.2d 922).

Here the trial court adequately explored the possibility that the jury was deadlocked, and it is significant that it was the jury, on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 9, 1998
    ...for the mistrial (see, Matter of Davis v. Brown, 87 N.Y.2d 626, 630, 641 N.Y.S.2d 819, 664 N.E.2d 884; see also, People v. Holland, --- A.D.2d ----, 670 N.Y.S.2d 534; Matter of Romero v. Justices of the Supreme Court, Queens County, 237 A.D.2d 292, 293-294, 654 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's rema......
  • People v. Holland
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 1998
    ...677 N.Y.S.2d 84 92 N.Y.2d 853, 699 N.E.2d 444 People v. Jonathon Holland Court of Appeals of New York June 10, 1998 Levine, J. --- A.D.2d ----, 670 N.Y.S.2d 534 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied. ...

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