People v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 13 February 1996 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Paul MITCHELL, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Peter Bark, Brooklyn, for appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney, Riverhead (Susan I. Braitman, of counsel; Christopher Costello, on the brief), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and RITTER, ALTMAN and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), rendered April 29, 1994, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal solicitation in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).
The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly excluded his mother from the courtroom was not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to her exclusion at the time of trial (see, People v. Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 559, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1000). In any event, the trial court exercised sound discretion in excluding the defendant's mother from the courtroom because the People had listed her as a possible witness from the outset of this action and she had, in fact, testified at two prior hearings.
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9) or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...( see People v. Stover, 36 A.D.3d 837, 831 N.Y.S.2d 183; People v. Marsalis, 3 A.D.3d 509, 510, 770 N.Y.S.2d 439; People v. Mitchell, 224 A.D.2d 551, 638 N.Y.S.2d 172). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 34......
-
People v. Medure
...to better advantage for his cause" (6 Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 1838, at 461 [Chadbourn rev., 1976]). See also, People v. Mitchell, 224 A.D.2d 551, 638 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2d Dept., 1996]. A cross-examiner will thus find it more difficult to expose inconsistencies, inaccuracies and falsehoods with ......
- People v. Menasche
- People v. Mitchell