People v. Santana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santana

260 A.D.2d 187, 687 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3621

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

DecidedApril 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 187 (People v. Santana) 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. Santana, 260 A.D.2d 187, 687 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered November 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 11 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The declaration of a mistrial after the first trial was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see, People v Dawkins, 82 NY2d 226, 232), since the trial was not long or complex, the jury’s deliberations had been lengthy, the second deadlock note from the jury was detailed and unwavering, and there would have been a substantial potential for coercion if the court had required this jury to engage in further deliberations (see, Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 251).

Defendant’s objection to an isolated reference in the People’s summation to defendant’s post-arrest detention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the remark was a proper response to an issue raised by the defense, and did not serve to depict defendant as a criminal. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered November 7, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 11 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The declaration of a mistrial after the first trial was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see, People v Dawkins, 82 NY2d 226, 232), since the trial was not long or complex, the jury’s deliberations had been lengthy, the second deadlock note from the jury was detailed and unwavering, and there would have been a substantial potential for coercion if the court had required this jury to engage in further deliberations (see, Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 251).

Defendant’s objection to an isolated reference in the People’s summation to defendant’s post-arrest detention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the remark was a proper response to an issue raised by the defense, and did not serve to depict defendant as a criminal. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 187, 687 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santana-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack