People v. Pantoliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pantoliano

127 A.D.2d 857, 512 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43362

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 23, 1987·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered March 21, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (felony murder), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the jury acquitted the defendant of the two counts of robbery in the first degree with which he was charged, the trial court’s charge to the jury coupled with the evidence which demonstrated an attempted robbery by the defendant were sufficient for the jury to have found the defendant guilty of felony murder (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1; People v Murray, 92 AD2d 617).

The Trial Judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial after two brief incidents involving courtroom spectators was not improper, in view of the Trial Judge’s observations that the first incident did not distract the jury from paying careful attention to the opening statements and the curative instructions given after the second incident (see, People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866; People v Terry, 109 AD2d 807; People v Onofrietti, [858] 109 AD2d 896, 897). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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 (Lombardo, J.), rendered March 21, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (felony murder), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the jury acquitted the defendant of the two counts of robbery in the first degree with which he was charged, the trial court’s charge to the jury coupled with the evidence which demonstrated an attempted robbery by the defendant were sufficient for the jury to have found the defendant guilty of felony murder (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1; People v Murray, 92 AD2d 617).

The Trial Judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial after two brief incidents involving courtroom spectators was not improper, in view of the Trial Judge’s observations that the first incident did not distract the jury from paying careful attention to the opening statements and the curative instructions given after the second incident (see, People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866; People v Terry, 109 AD2d 807; People v Onofrietti, [858] 109 AD2d 896, 897). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

People v. Pantoliano, 127 A.D.2d 857, 512 N.Y.S.2d 235, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

127 A.D.2d 857 (People v. Pantoliano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related