People v. Matt
| Decision Date | 12 November 2010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard W. MATT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert M. Pusateri, Conflict Defender, Lockport (Edward P. Perlman of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND PINE, JJ.
On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia, three counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1], [3] ), defendant contends that he was denied due process because he was required to wear a stun belt during trial. Defendant's contention involves matters outside the record on appeal and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see People v. Schrock, 73 A.D.3d 1429, 1431, 900 N.Y.S.2d 804). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after learning that jurors were aware of inflammatory newspaper headlines concerning the trial. We reject that contention. The court determined following an inquiry of the jurors that their minimal exposure to news accounts did not warrant a mistrial, and we conclude that the court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion ( see People v. Fernandez, 269 A.D.2d 167, 701 N.Y.S.2d 907, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 796, 711 N.Y.S.2d 164, 733 N.E.2d 236). We further note that the court's curative instructions "eliminated any likelihood of prejudice" ( People v. Bolden, 243 A.D.2d 268, 269, 663 N.Y.S.2d 25). Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of the accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated and thus that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see People v. Carrasquillo, 71 A.D.3d 1591, 897 N.Y.S.2d 581, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 803, 908 N.Y.S.2d 162, 934 N.E.2d 896). In any event, the record establishes that the People presented sufficient evidence connecting defendant to the crimes, thereby satisfying the corroboration requirement ( see CPL 60.22[1]; People v. Reome, 15 N.Y.3d 188, 191-192, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pierotti
...100 N.Y.2d 30, 34–35, 760 N.Y.S.2d 74, 790 N.E.2d 247 ; People v. Jimenez, 101 A.D.3d 513, 514, 956 N.Y.S.2d 29 ; People v. Matt, 78 A.D.3d 1616, 1617, 911 N.Y.S.2d 543 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the People did not commit a Rosario......
-
People v. Donahue
...exposure warrant a stay of the proceedings to enable defense counsel to move again for a change of venue ( see generally People v. Matt, 78 A.D.3d 1616, 911 N.Y.S.2d 543; People v. Fernandez, 269 A.D.2d 167, 701 N.Y.S.2d 907, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 796, 711 N.Y.S.2d 164, 733 N.E.2d 236). Cont......
-
State v. Adkison
...during trial, and because those comments negatively influenced other jurors. We reject those contentions ( see generally People v. Matt, 78 A.D.3d 1616, 1617, 911 N.Y.S.2d 543,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 954, 917 N.Y.S.2d 113, 942 N.E.2d 324). We note at the outset that, “[a]lthough this Mental Hyg......
-
People v. Pierotti
...defendant's motion (see CPL 270.35[1]; People v Rodriguez, 100 N.Y.2d 30, 34-35; People v Jimenez, 101 A.D.3d 513, 514; People v Matt, 78 A.D.3d 1616, 1617). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the People did not commit a Rosario violation (se......