From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Medina

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1981
53 N.Y.2d 951 (N.Y. 1981)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

concluding that claim of prosecutorial misconduct was preserved where defendant sought no additional remedy for the misconduct from the trial court

Summary of this case from Butler v. Cunningham
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

Argued April 28, 1981

Decided June 2, 1981

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ANTHONY SAVARESE, J.

Miriam J. Hibel and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.

John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Deborah Carlin Stevens of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of Appellate Division should be affirmed.

At one point during the trial, defense counsel asked the People's witness to reveal the name of the informant who had arranged the cocaine sale and later gave the police the information which led to defendant's arrest (see People v Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert den 419 U.S. 1012). The informant's identity was not disclosed, however, because the Trial Judge sustained the District Attorney's prompt objection to the question. Since the District Attorney was obviously unwilling to permit the witness to disclose the informant's identity, it was incumbent upon defendant to seek a judicial ruling on the question if he believed that disclosure would be helpful to his case. Having failed to request such a ruling at any point during the course of the trial, defendant is now precluded from raising the issue in this court as a potential ground for reversal (CPL 470.35, subd 1; 470.05, subd 2).

Defendant's further contention that the conviction should be reversed because of certain of the prosecutor's summation remarks is similarly without merit. The Trial Judge ultimately sustained defense counsel's objection to the District Attorney's comments and directed the District Attorney to refrain from making further statements on the same subject. Defense counsel did not request any curative instruction or move for a mistrial on the basis of the remarks that were made before the Trial Judge's ruling. Hence, no error of law was preserved for appellate review.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Summaries of

People v. Medina

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1981
53 N.Y.2d 951 (N.Y. 1981)

concluding that claim of prosecutorial misconduct was preserved where defendant sought no additional remedy for the misconduct from the trial court

Summary of this case from Butler v. Cunningham

In People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276 (1981), the New York Court of Appeals held that, where improper remarks by the prosecutor are alleged, defendant's failure to request appropriate instructions or a mistrial bars appellate review of such claims.

Summary of this case from Reardon v. Richardson

applying the contemporaneous objection rule to a claim of inappropriate comments during a prosecutor's summation

Summary of this case from O'Henry v. Superintendent

In People v. Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 (1981), the Court of Appeals held that after "[t]he trial judge ultimately sustained defense counsel's objection... [Defendant] did not request any curative instruction or move for a mistrial on the basis of the remarks that were made before the Trial Judge's ruling.

Summary of this case from People v. Ochoa
Case details for

People v. Medina

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT MEDINA…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 2, 1981

Citations

53 N.Y.2d 951 (N.Y. 1981)

Citing Cases

Velazquez v. Murray

"); People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839-40, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 88 (1999) ("Defense counsel made only a general…

O'Henry v. Superintendent

Where a defendant's objection is sustained, but the defendant fails to request additional relief, the…

420 Citing Cases