People v. Miller

Decision Date03 April 1978
Citation62 A.D.2d 1003,403 N.Y.S.2d 298
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Roger MILLER, Appellant.

John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Riverhead (Gair G. Betts, Riverhead, and Leon J. Kesner, Bay Shore, of counsel), for appellant.

Patrick Henry, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Vincent A. Malito, Riverhead, of counsel), for respondent.

Before LATHAM, J. P., and DAMIANI, HAWKINS and O'CONNOR, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered September 8, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At the defendant's first trial, the court granted the prosecutor's motion to amend the bill of particulars to reflect that the alleged sale of heroin took place at the Southampton Village Motel instead of at the Shinnecock Motel, as was stated in the bill of particulars. The court denied the defendant's motion to preclude and granted his application for a mistrial.

Having requested a mistrial, the defendant may not now argue that the second trial, which resulted in his conviction, exposed him to double jeopardy (see Matter of Napoli v. Supreme Ct. of State of N. Y., 40 A.D.2d 159, 338 N.Y.S.2d 721, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 980, 353 N.Y.S.2d 740, 309 N.E.2d 137 (on the opinion of STEUER, J., at the Appellate Division), cert. den. 417 U.S. 947, 94 S.Ct. 3073, 41 L.Ed.2d 668; cf. Matter of Cardin v. Sedita, 53 A.D.2d 253, 385 N.Y.S.2d 667). The Trial Judge's finding at the first trial that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the name of the correct hotel was not purposeful or willful is supported by the record. The defendant's contention that he did not in fact request the mistrial is contradicted by the transcript of the aborted first trial, which reveals that the defendant personally joined in his attorney's request for a mistrial.

We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Peterson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 13, 1978
    ......         See as well, People v. Miller, 1978, App.Div., 403 N.Y.S.2d 298; State v. Small, Me.1978, 381 A.2d 1130; Cook v. State, 1978, 281 Md. 665, 381 A.2d 671; State v. ......
  • People v. Miles
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 3, 1978
    ......v. Joseph MILES, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 3, 1978.         Martin Erdmann and William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Jane B. Malmo, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.         Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Richard S. Miller, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.         Before HOPKINS, J. P., and MARTUSCELLO, TITONE and RABIN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.         Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 11, 1975, convicting him of attempted possession of ......

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