People v. Coursey

250 A.D.2d 351, 673 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5253
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 351 (People v. Coursey) 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. Coursey, 250 A.D.2d 351, 673 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered September 28, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, tampering with a witness in the third degree (3 counts) and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 22/s to 5 Vs years, three terms of 2 to 4 years, and a term of 1 year, respectively, all to be served concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

. Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the complainant’s blurting out of prior bad acts evidence contrary to the court’s prior ruling excluding such evidence. The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for a mistrial (see, People v Young, 48 NY2d 995), because “the statement was cut off in midstream by the court’s prompt intercession, minimizing any prejudicial effect it might have” (People v Blackshear, 112 AD2d 1044, 1045), and because the testimony was stricken and, in both the preliminary and final charge, the court directed the jury to disregard stricken testimony, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Roman, 210 AD2d 45, lv denied 84 NY2d 1037). We note that defendant refused the court’s offer of further curative instructions.

We reject defendant’s argument that his conviction on the count of tampering with a witness (Penal Law § 215.11) relating to a December 28, 1993 telephone call was against the weight of the evidence. In assessing whether the statement constituted an attempt to instill fear, the jury was entitled to draw inferences based on the surrounding events, including subsequent threats made by defendant (see, People v Ingram, [352]*35271 NY2d 474). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Darbasie
2026 NY Slip Op 00856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
People v. Estwick
173 N.Y.S.3d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Fabien
2022 NY Slip Op 03695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Santos
2021 NY Slip Op 07563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Stephans
2019 NY Slip Op 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Hall
266 A.D.2d 160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Eaton v. State
759 So. 2d 562 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1999)
People v. Chambers
254 A.D.2d 212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D.2d 351, 673 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coursey-nyappdiv-1998.