From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 14, 1992
186 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 14, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the further prosecution of the defendant was not barred by double jeopardy since there was a manifest necessity for a sua sponte declaration of a mistrial at the defendant's first trial. Under the circumstances, the court properly declared a mistrial upon ascertaining that the defense counsel had been suspended from the practice of law (see, People v Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to counsel because the attorney who represented him at the Mapp hearing had been suspended from the practice of law is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant did not request a new hearing after new counsel was appointed to represent him at his second trial (see, People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Gray, 154 A.D.2d 478).

The defendant's contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was improper is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to its submission (see, People v Gray, supra, at 481; People v Mathis, 150 A.D.2d 613; People v Moore, 149 A.D.2d 739).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 14, 1992
186 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONOVAN ANDERSON…

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

Date published: Sep 14, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
587 N.Y.S.2d 430

Citing Cases

People v. Twedt

Counsel's own conduct in representing the defendant when there was an actual conflict and his refusal to…