From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Clearwater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2000
269 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 14, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered February 17, 1997, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, driving while intoxicated (two counts), assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdivt, and imposing sentence.

PRESENT: O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, FLORIO AND SMITH, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the first trial of this case, the trial court, saa sponte, declared a mistrial before an entire jury was impaneled and sworn. Consequently, the appellant was not placed in double jeopardy ( see, Matter of Brackley v. Donnelly, 53 A.D.2d 849). Accordingly, the standard to be applied in determining whether the court properly declared a mistrial is whether "`the ends of public justice wduld otherwise [have been] defeated'" if a mistrial had not been declared ( Matter of Brackley v. Donnelly, supra, at 850). The decision to declare a mistrial is within the broad discretion of the trial court and is entitled to great deference ( see, Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243). Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declaring a mistrial.

During the second trial, the court erred in instructing the jury, in the absence of a request by the defendant, that no adverse inference should be drawn from the defendant's failure to testify. Reversal is not warranted, however, because there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction ( see, CPL 300.10; People v. Koberstein, 66 N.Y.2d 989; People v. Boyd, 53 N.Y.2d 912; People v. Aguirre, 248 A.D.2d 546; People v. Bradshaw, 154 A.D.2d 690). Additionally, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, to the extent that any of the prosecutor's remarks during summation were improper, any error was harmless ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Clearwater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 2000
269 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Clearwater

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL CLEARWATER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 14, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 921

Citing Cases

People v. Oliver

In my view, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, it was manifestly necessary for the Supreme…

People v. Oliver

In my view, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, it was manifestly necessary for the Supreme…