Opinion
June 9, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
During the course of the trial, the defendant acted in a disruptive manner, culminating in several outbursts which occurred in the presence of the jury. On appeal, the defendant contends that his disruptive conduct prejudicially affected the jury and that the trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial, following his outbursts, constituted reversible error. We disagree.
In People v. Palermo ( 32 N.Y.2d 222, 225), the Court of Appeals stated:
"The preservation of order and dignity during a trial is, of course, vital to the proper administration of justice in our courts and this may not be impaired by the contumacious acts of a defendant.
"The responsibility of guaranteeing that this atmosphere is maintained rests with the Trial Justice. The court's duty in relation to the proper means and guidelines to be followed in dealing with [the] defendant committing disruptive acts during trial is governed by Illinois v. Allen * * * where the Supreme Court concluded that `trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case'".
The trial court, in the instant case, made every effort to minimize the possibility of prejudice by promptly removing the jury from the courtroom at the onset of the defendant's outbursts, and by issuing detailed and elaborate instructions to the jury to strike the incidents from their minds. The evidence adduced at trial overwhelmingly established the defendant's guilt, and the defendant was not entitled to a mistrial predicated upon his own disruptive behavior (see, People v Nathan, 110 A.D.2d 858).
We further find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was within the statutory limits and was appropriate under the circumstances. We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be devoid of merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.