People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 27 May 1988 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wayne WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerald T. Barth, by J. Scott Porter, Syracuse, for appellant.
Robert Wildridge by Anthony Gigliotti, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and DOERR, GREEN, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
After receiving a radio call of a burglary in progress, the police observed defendant fleeing from the crime scene and gave chase. Defendant was ordered to stop but he refused to do so. The pursuit continued and immediately before defendant was apprehended he was seen dropping a shaving kit to the ground. The kit and its contents of assorted coins and jewelry had been stolen in the burglary. Defendant was arrested, and the police seized the green army coat he was wearing and placed it in a plastic evidence bag, which was then sealed. No inventory search of the coat's pockets was made. Among several items stolen in the burglary were three silver certificate $2 bills.
Defendant's pretrial omnibus motion sought discovery and inspection "of any tangible personal property obtained from the defendant ... which the prosecution intends to produce at trial." The prosecutor consented to the inspection, but during the course thereof he refused to allow defendant's counsel to open the sealed evidence bag to inspect the pockets of defendant's coat. Defendant made no further application to the court for that relief. At trial, out of the presence of the jury, the coat was removed from the evidence bag by the prosecutor and defense counsel, and three $2 bills were found in one of the pockets. Defendant's counsel stated that he would object to their entry into evidence and moved for a mistrial on the grounds of surprise and prejudice. The court, after finding that the prosecution had no prior knowledge of the presence of the $2 bills in defendant's coat, denied defendant's motion. Thereafter, in the presence of the jury and over defendant's objection of surprise and prejudice, the bills were received in evidence. At the close of the evidence, defendant's renewed mistrial motion was again denied.
Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motions. We disagree. It is well established that absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's determination of a such a motion should not be disturbed (CPL 280.10; Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243, 481 N.Y.S.2d 657, 471 N.E.2d 429; People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 445 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Woods
...was the surprise evidence so inconsistent with defendant's defense as to deprive him of a fair trial (C.P.L. 280.10; People v. Williams, 140 A.D.2d 970, 529 N.Y.S.2d 646, appeal denied, 73 N.Y.2d 861, 537 N.Y.S.2d 507, 534 N.E.2d 346; compare, People v. Evans, 111 A.D.2d 830, 490 N.Y.S.2d 2......
-
People v. Diaz
...defense as to deprive him of a fair trial. (CPL 280.10; People v. Woods, 165 A.D.2d 798, 799, 564 N.Y.S.2d 281, 282; People v. Williams, 140 A.D.2d 970, 529 N.Y.S.2d 646, app. denied, 73 N.Y.2d 861, 537 N.Y.S.2d 507, 534 N.E.2d 346.) Moreover, the trial court not only told the jury that the......
-
People v. Williams
...N.Y.S.2d 507 73 N.Y.2d 861, 534 N.E.2d 346 People v. Williams (Wayne) COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK DEC 08, 1988 Wachtler, C.J. 140 A.D.2d 970, 529 N.Y.S.2d 646 App.Div. 4, Onondaga Denied ...