People v. Chambers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chambers

254 A.D.2d 212, 679 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11397

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 27, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered August 3, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial, since the witness’s response about a series of other robberies that had been committed was cut off in midstream and, in any event, was not linked to defendant in particular (see, People v Coursey, 250 AD2d 351, lv denied 92 NY2d 850). Moreover, defense counsel explicitly informed the court that he did not wish to have a curative instruction issued, and defendant’s complaint that the witness had acted in “bad faith” is unsubstantiated.

The court’s instructions concerning credibility and identification, when viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper principles, including the People’s burden of proof with respect to the reliability of the identification testimony.

[213] The court properly admitted limited testimony concerning the complainant’s viewing of a photo array since, under the circumstances, the defense opened the door to this matter (People v Straker, 247 AD2d 266). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered August 3, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial, since the witness’s response about a series of other robberies that had been committed was cut off in midstream and, in any event, was not linked to defendant in particular (see, People v Coursey, 250 AD2d 351, lv denied 92 NY2d 850). Moreover, defense counsel explicitly informed the court that he did not wish to have a curative instruction issued, and defendant’s complaint that the witness had acted in “bad faith” is unsubstantiated.

The court’s instructions concerning credibility and identification, when viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper principles, including the People’s burden of proof with respect to the reliability of the identification testimony.

[213] The court properly admitted limited testimony concerning the complainant’s viewing of a photo array since, under the circumstances, the defense opened the door to this matter (People v Straker, 247 AD2d 266). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

People v. Chambers, 254 A.D.2d 212, 679 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 212 (People v. Chambers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related