People v. Augustine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Augustine

6 A.D.3d 543, 774 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 543 (People v. Augustine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Augustine, 6 A.D.3d 543, 774 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[544]*544Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 11, 2001, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant correctly contends that the prosecutor’s questions regarding whether he “ma[de] an outcry” or filed a police report after his arrest were improper and violated his right to remain silent (see People v Haines, 139 AD2d 591 [1988]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 [1987]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 [1983]). While the trial court properly sustained defense counsel’s objections before the questions were answered, it erred in denying a subsequent request for curative instructions. As the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, this error was not harmless, and a new trial is warranted (cf. People v Henry, 306 AD2d 539 [2003]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

[544]*544Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 11, 2001, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant correctly contends that the prosecutor’s questions regarding whether he “ma[de] an outcry” or filed a police report after his arrest were improper and violated his right to remain silent (see People v Haines, 139 AD2d 591 [1988]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 [1987]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 [1983]). While the trial court properly sustained defense counsel’s objections before the questions were answered, it erred in denying a subsequent request for curative instructions. As the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, this error was not harmless, and a new trial is warranted (cf. People v Henry, 306 AD2d 539 [2003]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 543, 774 N.Y.S.2d 397, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-augustine-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack