People v. Terry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Terry

109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47312

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 807 (People v. Terry) 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. Terry, 109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered August 11, 1983, convicting her of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

[808]*808The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by misconduct on the part of the prosecutor during her cross-examination of the defendant. Although the prosecutor improperly questioned the defendant about her pretrial silence and attempted to inquire about her communications with her attorney, the trial court promptly sustained counsel’s objections and issued immediate curative instructions which were sufficient to dispel whatever prejudicial effect such questions may have had (People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179; see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865; People v Jalah, 107 AD2d 762). We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, 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 (Aiello, J.), rendered August 11, 1983, convicting her of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

[808]*808The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by misconduct on the part of the prosecutor during her cross-examination of the defendant. Although the prosecutor improperly questioned the defendant about her pretrial silence and attempted to inquire about her communications with her attorney, the trial court promptly sustained counsel’s objections and issued immediate curative instructions which were sufficient to dispel whatever prejudicial effect such questions may have had (People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179; see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865; People v Jalah, 107 AD2d 762). We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-terry-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack