From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1998
249 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 21, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).


The court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's application for a mistrial based upon prior bad act testimony elicited during cross-examination of the complainant, since the court's prompt curative actions in striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it prevented any possible prejudice to defendant ( see, People v. Maisonet, 209 A.D.2d 297, 298, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 864, cert denied 516 U.S. 809). Defendant failed to preserve his claim of error regarding the prosecutor's summation comments in connection with the complainant's identification testimony and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the comments in question did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant, as well as the court's instructions to the jurors that it was their recollection of the evidence that controlled and that nothing the attorneys said in summation constituted evidence ( see, People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 120, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).

Defendant's challenge to the court's charge is unpreserved and without merit.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1998
249 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Thomas

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Apr 21, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 648

Citing Cases

People v. Kanner

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a prosecution…