People v. Collins

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Collins

754 N.E.2d 192, 96 N.Y.2d 837, 729 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 2367

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 754 N.E.2d 192 (People v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Collins, 754 N.E.2d 192, 96 N.Y.2d 837, 729 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 2367 (N.Y. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant appeals his conviction of conspiracy in the first degree arising from his alleged participation in a large-scale drug operation. On appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after a “stipulation” was read to the jury stating that defendant was incarcerated from February 19, 1992 to the date of trial about two and a half years later. On this record we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law by denying the motion for a mistrial (see, People v Robinson, 93 NY2d 986, 987-988). Defendant’s arguments with respect to the denial of his motion for severance and the Allen charge (Allen v United States, 164 US 492) are without merit. His remaining arguments are unpreserved.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant appeals his conviction of conspiracy in the first degree arising from his alleged participation in a large-scale drug operation. On appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after a “stipulation” was read to the jury stating that defendant was incarcerated from February 19, 1992 to the date of trial about two and a half years later. On this record we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law by denying the motion for a mistrial (see, People v Robinson, 93 NY2d 986, 987-988). Defendant’s arguments with respect to the denial of his motion for severance and the Allen charge (Allen v United States, 164 US 492) are without merit. His remaining arguments are unpreserved.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

754 N.E.2d 192, 96 N.Y.2d 837, 729 N.Y.S.2d 433, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 2367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-collins-ny-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack