From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 20, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and his codefendant, Andres Carrasco, were tried and convicted for arson and related charges arising out of a fire that damaged a Brooklyn apartment building in March 1983. The conviction of the codefendant Carrasco was reversed and a new trial ordered on the basis of the inadmissibility of an inaudible tape recording of a conversation between an informant and Carrasco (see, People v Carrasco, 125 A.D.2d 695). The defendant now argues that he is entitled to a new trial for this reason also. We disagree.

In contrast to the circumstances involving the codefendant Carrasco, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the erroneous admission of the tape recording. First, apart from the recorded conversation, the remaining evidence against the defendant was quite strong, unlike the much weaker case against Carrasco. The informant testified at trial that she overheard two conversations — directly before and after the fire — in which the defendant virtually admitted his involvement in the fire. Thus, even excluding the tape recording, there was ample evidence to support the defendant's conviction. Second, the recorded conversation contained absolutely no references, either direct or indirect, to the defendant. Accordingly, any possible prejudice to the defendant by the admission of the tape recording was minimal, and any error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

We also reject the defendant's contention that a mistrial should have been granted on the basis of the introduction of evidence of prior uncharged crimes. The references to an unrelated fire were brief and adequately cured by the court's clear instructions to disregard them (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995; People v Martin, 154 A.D.2d 554; People v Jalah, 107 A.D.2d 762).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Santiago

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VICTOR SANTIAGO…

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 678

Citing Cases

People v. Reed

The reference to the gun was brief and there was no evidence indicating that the defendant had used a gun in…

People v. Javier

Nor do we find that the prosecutor's remarks during summation deprived the defendant of a fair trial.…