People v. Fray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fray

306 A.D.2d 188, 760 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315

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

DecidedJune 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 188 (People v. Fray) 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. Fray, 306 A.D.2d 188, 760 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered November 2, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing her to a term of six months, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor did not violate the court’s Sandoval ruling when he began to elicit some of the underlying facts of defendant’s prior conviction for selling drugs, and the court properly denied defendant’s mistrial motion made on this ground. Viewing the Sandoval proceeding as a whole, we conclude that the ruling permitted elicitation of both the conviction and its underlying facts. In any event, the prosecutor’s inquiry was cut off by defendant’s objection after only a few words, was never completed, and went unanswered (see People v Terry, 219 AD2d 529 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 851 [1995]). The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions that questions are not evidence.

The court’s instruction on interested witnesses provided the jury with sufficient guidance, given the facts of the case, upon which to evaluate the possible interests of the People’s witnesses (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 659 [1994]; People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 967 [1989]; People v Pizarro, 190 AD2d 634 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1018 [1993]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered November 2, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing her to a term of six months, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor did not violate the court’s Sandoval ruling when he began to elicit some of the underlying facts of defendant’s prior conviction for selling drugs, and the court properly denied defendant’s mistrial motion made on this ground. Viewing the Sandoval proceeding as a whole, we conclude that the ruling permitted elicitation of both the conviction and its underlying facts. In any event, the prosecutor’s inquiry was cut off by defendant’s objection after only a few words, was never completed, and went unanswered (see People v Terry, 219 AD2d 529 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 851 [1995]). The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions that questions are not evidence.

The court’s instruction on interested witnesses provided the jury with sufficient guidance, given the facts of the case, upon which to evaluate the possible interests of the People’s witnesses (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 659 [1994]; People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 967 [1989]; People v Pizarro, 190 AD2d 634 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1018 [1993]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 188, 760 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fray-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack