People v. Samper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Samper

239 A.D.2d 191, 657 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5153

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 13, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Su[192] preme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 18, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

As a whole, the court’s supplemental charges on evaluating witnesses’ credibility adequately conveyed the proper standards (People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821).

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial since the court promptly struck the offending testimony and issued curative instructions to the jury (People v Owens, 214 AD2d 480, 481, lv denied 86 NY2d 799). The court properly declined to discharge the purportedly deadlocked jury, which had deliberated over a 2-day period, during which it requested and obtained extensive readback and re-instruction (Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[192] preme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 18, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

As a whole, the court’s supplemental charges on evaluating witnesses’ credibility adequately conveyed the proper standards (People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821).

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial since the court promptly struck the offending testimony and issued curative instructions to the jury (People v Owens, 214 AD2d 480, 481, lv denied 86 NY2d 799). The court properly declined to discharge the purportedly deadlocked jury, which had deliberated over a 2-day period, during which it requested and obtained extensive readback and re-instruction (Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Samper, 239 A.D.2d 191, 657 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

239 A.D.2d 191 (People v. Samper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related