People v. Werts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Werts

206 A.D.2d 872, 616 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7786

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1994·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that County Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach defendant by referring to a prior Family Court order is not preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court should have declared a mistrial, sua sponte, because of prosecutorial misconduct. The record does not reflect a basis for such a declaration (see, CPL 280.10 [3]; Matter of Texidor v Barlow, 71 AD2d 613, 614), and the prosecutor’s conduct did not evince a [873]*873pervasive pattern of misconduct so egregious that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401; People v Plant, 138 AD2d 968, lv denied 71 NY2d 1031).

We conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Finally, defendant’s sentence is neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Ward, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that County Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to impeach defendant by referring to a prior Family Court order is not preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court should have declared a mistrial, sua sponte, because of prosecutorial misconduct. The record does not reflect a basis for such a declaration (see, CPL 280.10 [3]; Matter of Texidor v Barlow, 71 AD2d 613, 614), and the prosecutor’s conduct did not evince a [873]*873pervasive pattern of misconduct so egregious that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401; People v Plant, 138 AD2d 968, lv denied 71 NY2d 1031).

We conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Finally, defendant’s sentence is neither harsh nor excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Ward, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

People v. Werts, 206 A.D.2d 872, 616 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

206 A.D.2d 872 (People v. Werts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related