From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Joyner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 2002
295 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-04796

Submitted May 30, 2002.

June 25, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 9, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Lavine of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Joseph Huttler of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The introduction of testimony regarding the defendant's membership in a gang did not constitute reversible error (see People v. Newby, 291 A.D.2d 460; People v. Herrera, 287 A.D.2d 579, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 705; People v. Perez, 265 A.D.2d 347). Much of this testimony was elicited after the defense counsel opened the door to the matter on cross-examination (see People v. Newby, supra; People v. Peoples, 143 A.D.2d 780, 781; see generally People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451-453). Any potential prejudice to the defendant was alleviated by the trial court's curative instructions to the jury (see People v. Newby, supra; People v. Bernard, 224 A.D.2d 192).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Joyner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 2002
295 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Joyner

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. ISA JOYNER, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 25, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 877

Citing Cases

People v. Vines

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict…

People v. Martin

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The introduction of testimony regarding the results of a field…