People v. La Verne Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. La Verne Edwards

145 A.D.2d 503

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 503 (People v. La Verne Edwards) 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. La Verne Edwards, 145 A.D.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered December 16, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant La Verne Edwards and his codefendant Keith Watson were convicted of the robbery of a resident of a rooming house in the Village of Ossining, New York.

The defendant claims that inadequacies in the prosecutor’s opening statement necessitate a new trial. Although the statement may have failed to sufficiently relate the facts to the various crimes charged in the indictment (see, People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380, 384, cert denied 451 US 911), the general rule is that absent bad faith or undue prejudice, a trial verdict will [504]*504not be set aside for deficiencies in an opening statement (People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 207, cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025; People v Watson, 121 AD2d 487, lv denied 68 NY2d 818). We find no bad faith in the instant case. Furthermore, we conclude, as in People v Watson (supra), that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial because the curative instructions it delivered in response to the defendant’s objection to the testimony regarding the suspect’s names, overheard at the scene of the robbery, cured any prejudice which may have arisen (see, People v Watson, supra).

While we conclude that the hearing court improperly denied the defendant’s application to preclude the prosecution from inquiring into a crime that had been dismissed on the People’s own motion (see, People v Sanza, 37 AD2d 632), given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881, lv denied 67 NY2d 1056). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Fiber, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered December 16, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant La Verne Edwards and his codefendant Keith Watson were convicted of the robbery of a resident of a rooming house in the Village of Ossining, New York.

The defendant claims that inadequacies in the prosecutor’s opening statement necessitate a new trial. Although the statement may have failed to sufficiently relate the facts to the various crimes charged in the indictment (see, People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380, 384, cert denied 451 US 911), the general rule is that absent bad faith or undue prejudice, a trial verdict will [504]*504not be set aside for deficiencies in an opening statement (People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 207, cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025; People v Watson, 121 AD2d 487, lv denied 68 NY2d 818). We find no bad faith in the instant case. Furthermore, we conclude, as in People v Watson (supra), that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial because the curative instructions it delivered in response to the defendant’s objection to the testimony regarding the suspect’s names, overheard at the scene of the robbery, cured any prejudice which may have arisen (see, People v Watson, supra).

While we conclude that the hearing court improperly denied the defendant’s application to preclude the prosecution from inquiring into a crime that had been dismissed on the People’s own motion (see, People v Sanza, 37 AD2d 632), given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless (see, People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881, lv denied 67 NY2d 1056). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-la-verne-edwards-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack