People v. Rhames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rhames

187 A.D.2d 464

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Rhames) 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. Rhames, 187 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered May 30, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Viewing the [465]*465evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15 [5]), we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant also argues that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial when a prosecution witness made reference to uncharged crimes. We disagree. Any prejudice to the defendant which may have arisen due to the prosecution witness’s brief mention of uncharged criminal activity was alleviated when the court sustained the defendant’s objection and took prompt curative action (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). In light of the court’s curative instructions, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a mistrial (see, People v Young, 48 NY2d 995). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered May 30, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Viewing the [465]*465evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15 [5]), we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant also argues that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial when a prosecution witness made reference to uncharged crimes. We disagree. Any prejudice to the defendant which may have arisen due to the prosecution witness’s brief mention of uncharged criminal activity was alleviated when the court sustained the defendant’s objection and took prompt curative action (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). In light of the court’s curative instructions, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a mistrial (see, People v Young, 48 NY2d 995). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rhames-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack