From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Carfagna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 3, 1995

Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention that County Court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial (see, CPL 280.10). The court struck the testimony objected to and immediately gave curative instructions that sufficiently eliminated any danger of prejudice to defendant (see, People v. Valenti, 199 A.D.2d 617, 618, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 811).

The court's charge on reasonable doubt as a whole conveyed the proper standard of proof, and the court's description of the trial as a "search for the truth", although not favored, does not require reversal (see, People v. Simpson, 178 A.D.2d 500, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 923). Finally, the court's charge on the element of causation was legally sufficient (see, Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 152-154).


Summaries of

People v. Carfagna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Carfagna

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 986

Citing Cases

People v. Reed

The court's charge on reasonable doubt as a whole conveyed the proper standard of proof to the jury. In any…

People v. Funderburk

The robbery victim's testimony constituted relevant background information to the charge of criminal…