People v. Vredenburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vredenburg

110 A.D.2d 730, 488 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48635

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 1985·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

It was not error for Criminal Term to deny a motion for mistrial brought by defense counsel after a prosecution witness volunteered that he had been asked to take a polygraph test. The court immediately sustained the objection and issued a prompt curative instruction. This corrected the error and minimized the prejudice which otherwise might have resulted from the unsolicited remark (see, People v Timmons, 95 AD2d 955).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either meritless or harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

It was not error for Criminal Term to deny a motion for mistrial brought by defense counsel after a prosecution witness volunteered that he had been asked to take a polygraph test. The court immediately sustained the objection and issued a prompt curative instruction. This corrected the error and minimized the prejudice which otherwise might have resulted from the unsolicited remark (see, People v Timmons, 95 AD2d 955).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either meritless or harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

People v. Vredenburg, 110 A.D.2d 730, 488 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

110 A.D.2d 730 (People v. Vredenburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related