People v. Miner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miner

241 A.D.2d 918, 661 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7850

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 918 (People v. Miner) 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. Miner, 241 A.D.2d 918, 661 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the jury’s verdict is repugnant. The fact that the jury did not believe that defendant possessed a knife does not negate the forcible compulsion element of rape and sexual abuse in the first degree (see, People v Goodfriend, 100 AD2d 781, 781-782, affd 64 NY2d 695). Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. County Court sustained defendant’s objection to each instance of alleged misconduct, and defendant did not request further curative instruction or move for a mistrial. “Thus, the court ‘must be deemed to have corrected the error to defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Balkum, 233 AD2d 929, 930, quoting People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071). In any event, the conduct of the prosecutor was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Curley, 159 AD 2d 969, 970, lv denied 76 NY2d 733). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the jury’s verdict is repugnant. The fact that the jury did not believe that defendant possessed a knife does not negate the forcible compulsion element of rape and sexual abuse in the first degree (see, People v Goodfriend, 100 AD2d 781, 781-782, affd 64 NY2d 695). Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct. County Court sustained defendant’s objection to each instance of alleged misconduct, and defendant did not request further curative instruction or move for a mistrial. “Thus, the court ‘must be deemed to have corrected the error to defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Balkum, 233 AD2d 929, 930, quoting People v Williams, 46 NY2d 1070, 1071). In any event, the conduct of the prosecutor was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Curley, 159 AD 2d 969, 970, lv denied 76 NY2d 733). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 918, 661 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miner-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack