People v. Medina
| Decision Date | 02 June 1981 |
| Citation | 441 N.Y.S.2d 442,53 N.Y.2d 951,424 N.E.2d 276 |
| Parties | , 424 N.E.2d 276 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert MEDINA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of Appellate Division, 74 A.D.2d 1006, 425 N.Y.S.2d 438, should be affirmed.
At one point during the trial, defense counsel asked the People's witness to reveal the name of the informant who had arranged the cocaine sale and later gave the police the information which led to defendant's arrest (see People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, 356 N.Y.S.2d 571, 313 N.E.2d 41, cert. den. 419 U.S. 1012, 95 S.Ct. 332, 42 L.Ed.2d 286). The informant's identity was not disclosed, however, because the Trial Judge sustained the District Attorney's prompt objection to the question. Since the District Attorney was obviously unwilling to permit the witness to disclose the informant's identity, it was incumbent upon defendant to seek a judicial ruling on the question if he believed that disclosure would be helpful to his case. Having failed to request such a ruling at any point during the course of the trial, defendant is now precluded from raising the issue in this court as a potential ground for reversal (CPL 470.35, subd. 1; 470.05, subd. 2).
Defendant's further contention that the conviction should be reversed because of certain of the prosecutor's summation remarks is similarly without merit. The Trial Judge ultimately sustained defense counsel's objection to the District Attorney's comments and directed the District Attorney to refrain from making further statements on the same subject. Defense counsel did not request any curative instruction or move for a mistrial on the basis of the remarks that were made before the Trial Judge's ruling. Hence, no error of law was preserved for appellate review.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allan v. Conway
...trial court." Ashley v. Burge, No. 05 Civ. 4497(JGK), 2006 WL 3327589, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006); see also People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 952, 441 N.Y.S. 442 (N.Y.1981). In the instant case, the Appellate Division did not explicitly state why it believed that petitioner's claim was un......
-
Brunson v. Tracy, 03-CV-1895 (DLI)(ASC).
...ruled that petitioner's claim was "unpreserved for appellate review (see N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 470.05(2); People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276[]) and, in any event, without merit...." People v. Brunson, 284 A.D.2d 406, 726 N.Y.S.2d 281 (2001) (citing People v. ......
-
People v. Greene
...note that these specific issues were not preserved for our review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276). In any event, we find that under the circumstances herein, the admission of the information that the expert was initi......
-
People v. Gillis
...objection; as to the others, defendant failed to request curative instructions or move for a mistrial (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276; People v. Murphy, 188 A.D.2d 742, 744, 591 N.Y.S.2d 860, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 890, 597 N.Y.S.2d 951, 613 N.E.2d......