People v. Canela

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Canela

3 A.D.3d 455, 770 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 455 (People v. Canela) 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. Canela, 3 A.D.3d 455, 770 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered November 26, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation. Although the prosecutor, at times, made isolated remarks that might be construed as suggesting that defendant failed to present evidence at trial, the comments did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in light of the court’s timely and detailed curative instructions reminding the jury that the People bore the burden of proof and that defendant had no duty to present evidence (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered November 26, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation. Although the prosecutor, at times, made isolated remarks that might be construed as suggesting that defendant failed to present evidence at trial, the comments did not deprive defendant of a fair trial in light of the court’s timely and detailed curative instructions reminding the jury that the People bore the burden of proof and that defendant had no duty to present evidence (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 455, 770 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canela-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack