Opinion
May 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.).
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendants motion for a mistrial after a police officer inadvertently testified, contrary to the courts prior ruling, that defendant said he had done "time before," since the reference was brief and the court issued prompt curative instructions to the jury to disregard the officers remark ( see, People v. Jiminez, 244 A.D.2d 289). The jury is presumed to have understood and followed such instructions ( People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104). This evidence could not have affected the verdict given the overwhelming evidence of defendants guilt.
The court properly received evidence, with appropriate limiting instructions, concerning a portion of defendants statement admitting the instant robbery and denying his involvement in others, as well as testimony regarding the events that prompted defendants statement, since the evidence challenged as suggesting involvement in other crimes was "`inextricably interwoven'" with defendants statement, in that this evidence explained what motivated the statement ( People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 361).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.