People v. Reynoso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reynoso

169 A.D.2d 886, 564 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 111

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 886 (People v. Reynoso) 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. Reynoso, 169 A.D.2d 886, 564 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered August 15, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

We find no error by County Court in its denial of defendant’s motion for a mistrial after a witness testified regarding the circumstances of a prior arrest of defendant on another charge. The court immediately gave curative instructions which were sufficient to minimize any prejudice defendant may have suffered as a result of the testimony (see, People v Young, 48 NY2d 995; People v Banks, 130 AD2d 498, lv denied 70 NY2d 709). Accordingly, defendant’s contention that a new trial is warranted is rejected.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered August 15, 1989, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).

We find no error by County Court in its denial of defendant’s motion for a mistrial after a witness testified regarding the circumstances of a prior arrest of defendant on another charge. The court immediately gave curative instructions which were sufficient to minimize any prejudice defendant may have suffered as a result of the testimony (see, People v Young, 48 NY2d 995; People v Banks, 130 AD2d 498, lv denied 70 NY2d 709). Accordingly, defendant’s contention that a new trial is warranted is rejected.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 886, 564 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reynoso-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack