People v. Adorno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Adorno

124 A.D.2d 588, 507 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61898

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 1986·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, which was predicated upon the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on only the second day of its deliberations, especially since much of the jury’s time was taken up by the rereading of testimony and the court’s answering of certain questions. Moreover, the supplemental instructions delivered by the court after the jury had reported that it was deadlocked were essentially neutral and noncoercive (see, People v Curtin, 115 AD2d 753, 754). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, which was predicated upon the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on only the second day of its deliberations, especially since much of the jury’s time was taken up by the rereading of testimony and the court’s answering of certain questions. Moreover, the supplemental instructions delivered by the court after the jury had reported that it was deadlocked were essentially neutral and noncoercive (see, People v Curtin, 115 AD2d 753, 754). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

People v. Adorno, 124 A.D.2d 588, 507 N.Y.S.2d 733, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

124 A.D.2d 588 (People v. Adorno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related