People v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 23 March 2016 |
| Citation | 137 A.D.3d 1163,27 N.Y.S.3d 270 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Yoseph HUNT, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
137 A.D.3d 1163
27 N.Y.S.3d 270
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Yoseph HUNT, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
March 23, 2016.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove,
Adam M. Koelsch, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered July 16, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts). The defendant's first trial on these charges ended in a mistrial.
During the defendant's second trial, the People revealed that one of the eyewitnesses to the crime would be unable to testify for medical reasons. The defendant moved for a mistrial with prejudice. The Supreme Court denied the motion and ruled that the witness was unavailable and that the People would be permitted to read her testimony from the first trial into the record, and this was done. During the subsequent testimony of one of the detectives, however, the People made reference to the witness's written statement to police, which the defense claimed had not been disclosed as required under People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881. Although it did not find that the prosecutor had acted intentionally, the court determined that the defendant was prejudiced by the People's failure to disclose the statement because defense counsel had not been able to use it in on cross-examination. Because the unavailable witness could not be recalled for further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edmondson
...complainant unequivocally answered "yes," defense counsel withdrew that motion to strike and made no mistral motion (see People v. Hunt, 137 A.D.3d 1163, 27 N.Y.S.3d 270 ; People v. Noel, 156 A.D.2d 592, 549 N.Y.S.2d 101 ). The defendant's related contention that his Sixth Amendment right o......
-
Hunt v. Artus
...and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to New York Penal Law §§ 125.25 and 265.03. See People v. Hunt, 27 N.Y.S.3d 270, 271 (App. Div. 2016). In his initial and amended petitions,2 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on thefollowing three grounds: (1) denial ......
-
People v. Hunt
...on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 23, 2016 ( People v. Hunt, 137 A.D.3d 1163, 27 N.Y.S.3d 270 ), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 16, 2012.ORDERED that the application is denied.......