People v. Young

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Young

401 N.E.2d 904, 48 N.Y.2d 995, 425 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2048

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by115 cases

This text of 401 N.E.2d 904 (People v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Young, 401 N.E.2d 904, 48 N.Y.2d 995, 425 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2048 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. Our examination of the record persuades us that there exists no basis for disturbing the factual finding made by Supreme Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division that the inculpatory statements had been voluntarily made by defendant following an effective waiver of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. Nor can we conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s requests for a mistrial based on peripheral references to another criminal act allegedly performed by the defendant, in light of the availability of less drastic means of alleviating whatever prejudice may have resulted. Indeed, in one instance the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony, and in another instance the court indicated a willingness to consider such a request. Instead, defendant adhered to his unwarranted demand for a mistrial. Upon .this appeal, defendant continues to insist that a mistrial was mandated. We disagree.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions, and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. Our examination of the record persuades us that there exists no basis for disturbing the factual finding made by Supreme Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division that the inculpatory statements had been voluntarily made by defendant following an effective waiver of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. Nor can we conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s requests for a mistrial based on peripheral references to another criminal act allegedly performed by the defendant, in light of the availability of less drastic means of alleviating whatever prejudice may have resulted. Indeed, in one instance the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony, and in another instance the court indicated a willingness to consider such a request. Instead, defendant adhered to his unwarranted demand for a mistrial. Upon .this appeal, defendant continues to insist that a mistrial was mandated. We disagree.

We have considered defendant’s other contentions, and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 N.E.2d 904, 48 N.Y.2d 995, 425 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-young-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack