From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1993
197 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

October 25, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution (US Const 5th, 14th Amends) and the New York Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 6) requires a dismissal of the indictment because his motion for a mistrial was provoked by deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree.

Although in her opening statement the prosecutor improperly referred to the defendant as a "pimp" (see generally, People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 361-362), the record does not support the defendant's claim that she did so with the intent to provoke a mistrial. "Absent such a bad-faith intent, the misconduct does not constitute the type of prosecutorial overreaching contemplated by the United States Supreme Court as requiring the barring of reprosecution on the ground of double jeopardy" (People v. Copeland, 127 A.D.2d 846, 847; see, Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 675-676; Schoendorf v. Mullen, 152 A.D.2d 715, 716). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 1993
197 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Mitchell

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Oct 25, 1993

Citations

197 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 923

Citing Cases

People v. May

The prosecution concedes that it erred in failing to disclose the arrangement with Jordan, and in failing to…

People v. Hart

The defendant introduced on cross-examination hearsay statements contained in the affidavit in support of the…