People v. Stanton
Decision Date | 28 September 2007 |
Docket Number | KA 06-02141. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 07103,43 A.D.3d 1299,842 N.Y.S.2d 637 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD H. STANTON, JR., Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered May 17, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree and petit larceny.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), criminal mischief in the third degree (§ 145.05 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Contrary to defendant's contention, the record of the Huntley hearing supports County Court's determination that the statements of defendant to the police were voluntarily made after he waived his Miranda rights (see People v Gainey, 34 AD3d 1250 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 880 [2007]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that photographs of footprints at the crime scene were improperly admitted in evidence (see generally People v Everson, 100 NY2d 609, 610 [2003]) and, in any event, that contention is without merit (see generally People v Wood, 79 NY2d 958, 960 [1992]).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial based upon the prosecutor's questioning of defendant concerning an uncharged burglary. Reversal based on prosecutorial misconduct is warranted only when the misconduct has caused such substantial prejudice to defendant that he was denied due process of law (see People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77 [1984], lv denied 63 NY2d 711 [1984]). "In measuring whether substantial prejudice has occurred, one must look at the severity and frequency of the conduct, whether the court took appropriate action to dilute the effect of that conduct, and whether review of the evidence indicates that without the conduct the same result would undoubtedly have been reached" (People v Mott, 94 AD2d 415, 419 [1983]). Here, although the court admonished the prosecutor after he first questioned defendant concerning the uncharged burglary, the prosecutor nevertheless asked defendant a second question concerning the uncharged crime. The court thereupon excused the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tetro
...codefendant speaking with their attorneys and that such conduct was not to be held against them (see id. ; People v. Stanton, 43 A.D.3d 1299, 1300, 842 N.Y.S.2d 637 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 993, 848 N.Y.S.2d 611, 878 N.E.2d 1027 [2007] ). We thus conclude that the alleged prosec......
-
People v. Thomas
...to grant defendant's motion for a mistrial based on one of the prosecutor's comments during summation ( see People v. Stanton, 43 A.D.3d 1299, 1299–1300, 842 N.Y.S.2d 637,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 993, 848 N.Y.S.2d 611, 878 N.E.2d 1027). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further cont......
-
People v. Stanton
...993 848 N.Y.S.2d 611 PEOPLE v. STANTON. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. November 27, 2007. Appeal from 4th Dept.: 43 A.D.3d 1299, 842 N.Y.S.2d 637 Application for Leave to Criminal Appeal denied. (Smith, J.). ...
- People v. Jones