People v. Benito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benito

256 A.D.2d 221, 683 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13753

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 221 (People v. Benito) 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. Benito, 256 A.D.2d 221, 683 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered July 26, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life on the robbery and burglary convictions, and 2 to 4 years on the remaining convictions, unanimously affirmed.

A review of the record indicates that the circumstances presented to the court permitted the court’s discretionary use of shackles to restrain defendant and maintain order in the proceedings (People v Mendola, 2 NY2d 270, 276-277). The court was not required to accept defendant’s promise of good behavior where such promises had proved unreliable before (see, People v Harding, 243 AD2d 401, lv denied 91 NY2d 874). Additionally, the record indicates that the shackles were hardly noticeable, that the jury had witnessed defendant’s misconduct in the courtroom, and that the court issued appropriate instructions to the jury to minimize any potential prejudice to defendant. In the circumstances, there is no support for defendant’s claim of undue prejudice (see, People v Palermo, 32 NY2d 222, 226; see also, People v Bailey, 205 AD2d 789, lv denied 84 NY2d 822).

Defendant’s claim of prejudice due to late delivery of Rosario material is unsupported by the record and the court properly denied defendant’s request for a mistrial. In this connection, the record establishes that late delivery of any Rosario material was not due to bad faith on the part of the prosecutor, and that the court eliminated any possible prejudice to defendant by precluding the People from taking advantage of the material and by offering defense counsel the opportunity to recall any relevant witness for further questioning with the benefit of the material in question (see, People v Leidinger, 196 AD2d 688, lv denied 82 NY2d 851). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered July 26, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life on the robbery and burglary convictions, and 2 to 4 years on the remaining convictions, unanimously affirmed.

A review of the record indicates that the circumstances presented to the court permitted the court’s discretionary use of shackles to restrain defendant and maintain order in the proceedings (People v Mendola, 2 NY2d 270, 276-277). The court was not required to accept defendant’s promise of good behavior where such promises had proved unreliable before (see, People v Harding, 243 AD2d 401, lv denied 91 NY2d 874). Additionally, the record indicates that the shackles were hardly noticeable, that the jury had witnessed defendant’s misconduct in the courtroom, and that the court issued appropriate instructions to the jury to minimize any potential prejudice to defendant. In the circumstances, there is no support for defendant’s claim of undue prejudice (see, People v Palermo, 32 NY2d 222, 226; see also, People v Bailey, 205 AD2d 789, lv denied 84 NY2d 822).

Defendant’s claim of prejudice due to late delivery of Rosario material is unsupported by the record and the court properly denied defendant’s request for a mistrial. In this connection, the record establishes that late delivery of any Rosario material was not due to bad faith on the part of the prosecutor, and that the court eliminated any possible prejudice to defendant by precluding the People from taking advantage of the material and by offering defense counsel the opportunity to recall any relevant witness for further questioning with the benefit of the material in question (see, People v Leidinger, 196 AD2d 688, lv denied 82 NY2d 851). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 221, 683 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benito-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack