People v. Joyner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Joyner

295 A.D.2d 625, 744 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6777

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 2002·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 9, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The introduction of testimony regarding the defendant’s membership in a gang did not constitute reversible error (see People v Newby, 291 AD2d 460; People v Herrera, 287 AD2d 579, lv denied 97 NY2d 705; People v Perez, 265 AD2d 347). Much of this testimony was elicited after the defense counsel opened the door to the matter on cross-examination (see People v Newby, supra; People v Peoples, 143 AD2d 780, 781; see generally People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-453). Any potential prejudice to the defendant was alleviated by the trial court’s curative instructions to the jury (see People v Newby, supra; People v Bernard, 224 AD2d 192).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 9, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The introduction of testimony regarding the defendant’s membership in a gang did not constitute reversible error (see People v Newby, 291 AD2d 460; People v Herrera, 287 AD2d 579, lv denied 97 NY2d 705; People v Perez, 265 AD2d 347). Much of this testimony was elicited after the defense counsel opened the door to the matter on cross-examination (see People v Newby, supra; People v Peoples, 143 AD2d 780, 781; see generally People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-453). Any potential prejudice to the defendant was alleviated by the trial court’s curative instructions to the jury (see People v Newby, supra; People v Bernard, 224 AD2d 192).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

People v. Joyner, 295 A.D.2d 625, 744 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

295 A.D.2d 625 (People v. Joyner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related