People v. Morello

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Morello

460 N.E.2d 1094, 61 N.Y.2d 708, 472 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4012

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 460 N.E.2d 1094 (People v. Morello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Morello, 460 N.E.2d 1094, 61 N.Y.2d 708, 472 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4012 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division’s memorandum (92 AD2d 458). We add only that defendant’s argument that the mention of the name “Mongo” in testimony by one of the People’s witnesses required a mistrial is unpersuasive. There was no evidence that “Mongo” had particular reference to defendant or particular meaning to the jurors, and they were in any event instructed to disregard the testimony mentioning “Mongo”. We note that defendant never requested that the jurors be questioned to determine if prejudice resulted from the stricken testimony. Moreover, in view of defendant’s admission and the circumstantial evidence supporting his conviction, any error resulting from mention of “Mongo” would have been harmless.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division’s memorandum (92 AD2d 458). We add only that defendant’s argument that the mention of the name “Mongo” in testimony by one of the People’s witnesses required a mistrial is unpersuasive. There was no evidence that “Mongo” had particular reference to defendant or particular meaning to the jurors, and they were in any event instructed to disregard the testimony mentioning “Mongo”. We note that defendant never requested that the jurors be questioned to determine if prejudice resulted from the stricken testimony. Moreover, in view of defendant’s admission and the circumstantial evidence supporting his conviction, any error resulting from mention of “Mongo” would have been harmless.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 N.E.2d 1094, 61 N.Y.2d 708, 472 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morello-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack