From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention that there was a violation of his right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by granting the mistrial requested by the defense counsel in light of his immediate need for a heart transplant ( see, People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383). When the defendant objected to his counsel's motion, the court made a proper inquiry regarding the defense counsel's medical condition. Upon obtaining sufficient information regarding the severity and uncertainty of the defense counsel's condition, and after considering the alternatives, the trial court properly found that there was a manifest necessity for the mistrial ( see, Matter of Davis v. Brown, 87 N.Y.2d 626, 630; see also, People v. Holland, 248 A.D.2d 636; Matter of Romero v. Justices of Supreme Ct., 237 A.D.2d 292, 293-294).

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

Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARIN HAMILTON…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 849

Citing Cases

People v. Pearson

Under the circumstances, the defendant's consent to a mistrial may be implied ( see People v Ferguson, 67…