People v. Conde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Conde

37 A.D.3d 349, 828 N.Y.S.2d 893

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 349 (People v. Conde) 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. Conde, 37 A.D.3d 349, 828 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), rendered February 4, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of stalking in the third degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after a witness testified about an uncharged crime, since the evidence was not highly prejudicial under the circumstances of the case and since the court’s thorough curative actions were sufficient to prevent defendant from being prejudiced (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), rendered February 4, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of stalking in the third degree and criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after a witness testified about an uncharged crime, since the evidence was not highly prejudicial under the circumstances of the case and since the court’s thorough curative actions were sufficient to prevent defendant from being prejudiced (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 349, 828 N.Y.S.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-conde-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack