From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1998
249 A.D.2d 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 2, 1998

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.).


The court exercised sound discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial with prejudice, after it was revealed for the first time during the arresting officer's direct testimony that the buy money that had been recovered from defendant and vouchered was no longer retrievable. Defendant failed to demonstrate either prosecutorial misconduct or any real prejudice to his defense warranting the drastic remedy sought (People v. Morrison, 235 A.D.2d 501, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1038; see also, People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929, 931). It should be noted that the court gave an adverse inference charge favorable to defendant.

Defendant's claim that the prosecutor violated the court's Sandoval ruling is unpreserved for appellate review due to lack of specific objection (People v. Wilkens, 239 A.D.2d 105, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 899), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant opened the door to the questioning by his misleading testimony concerning his prior felony drug possession conviction (People v. Hunter, 235 A.D.2d 378, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1094). In any event, any error would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Walker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1998
249 A.D.2d 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALAN WALKER, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 2, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 222

Citing Cases

People v. Whaley

This testimony was probative of the essential element of intent to sell ( see e.g. People v Leak, 66 AD3d…

People v. Jones

Due to defendant's failure to either object to the prosecution's alleged violation of that ruling or request…