From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. English

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 13, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND BALIO, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's failure to disclose a portion of a surveillance videotape ( see, CPL 240.20 [g]). We disagree. The court's curative instruction to the jury eliminated any prejudice to defendant ( see, People v. Van Vleet, 256 A.D.2d 1181, 1182; see also, People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 520-521). Defendant further contends that he was denied a fair trial when the court allowed a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in allowing the witness to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, we conclude that any error is harmless. In the one instance in which the privilege was invoked, the matter related only to the witness's credibility and not to the facts surrounding the crimes with which defendant was charged ( see generally, People v. Owusu, 234 A.D.2d 893, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1039).


Summaries of

People v. English

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. English

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DAVID ENGLISH…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 225

Citing Cases

People v. Safford

We note with respect to the videotape that the People did not seek to have it admitted in evidence at trial,…

People v. Faeth

In any event, although the invocation of the privilege was not proper because the witness had already pleaded…