People v. Gray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gray

7 A.D.3d 291, 776 N.Y.S.2d 51, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6605

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

DecidedMay 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 291 (People v. Gray) 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. Gray, 7 A.D.3d 291, 776 N.Y.S.2d 51, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered February 25, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously modified,^as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after an officer testified during cross-examination about attempting to buy drugs from defendant on a prior occasion. The court prevented any prejudice when it struck the officer’s response and gave a prompt curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered February 25, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously modified,^as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after an officer testified during cross-examination about attempting to buy drugs from defendant on a prior occasion. The court prevented any prejudice when it struck the officer’s response and gave a prompt curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 291, 776 N.Y.S.2d 51, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gray-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack