Opinion
2018–14594 Ind. No. 575/16
10-28-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Davon THORNHILL, Appellant.
Randall D. Unger, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Russell Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
Randall D. Unger, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Russell Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leslie Leach, J.), rendered October 31, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion for a mistrial after a police officer mentioned at trial the defendant's status as a parolee. "[T]he decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is truly necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial" ( People v. Wakefield, 212 A.D.2d 649, 649, 622 N.Y.S.2d 575 ; see People v. Jones, 167 A.D.3d 654, 86 N.Y.S.3d 896 ; People v. Schlackman, 153 A.D.3d 641, 642, 57 N.Y.S.3d 409 ). Here, the police officer's brief, inadvertent mention of the defendant's status as a parolee was immediately stricken by the court and curative instructions were provided to the jury, which alleviated any prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866, 437 N.Y.S.2d 75, 418 N.E.2d 668 ; People v. Lockhart, 220 A.D.2d 690, 691, 632 N.Y.S.2d 656 ; People v. Moore, 148 A.D.2d 754, 755, 539 N.Y.S.2d 486 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.