Opinion
April 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J.).
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made after a prosecution witness, in response to an inquiry by the court during cross-examination, referred to an incriminating statement made by defendant at the time of his arrest. Any prejudice that may have resulted by the statement was cured by the striking of the answer and a prompt curative instruction that each juror assured the court he or she would follow (People v Torres, 199 A.D.2d 224, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 859). It must be presumed that the jury followed the instruction not to consider the stricken testimony in their deliberations (People v Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.