People v. Reardon, 126 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Reardon, 126 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Parilla (nyappdiv, 2023-03-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Parilla
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Moreover, the record does not support defendant's "claim that the mistrial . . . was necessitated by a deliberate intent on the part of the prosecution to provoke a mistrial" ( People v Reardon , 126 AD2d 974, 974 [4th Dept 1987]; see People v Haffa , 197 AD3d 964, 965 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1059 [2021]; People v Maldonado , 122 AD3d 1379 , 1380 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 1002 [2016], reconsideration denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Haffa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Here, as noted, defendant moved for a mistrial, and the record does not support "defendant's claim that the mistrial motion was necessitated by a deliberate intent on the part of the prosecution to provoke a mistrial" ( Reardon , 126 AD2d at 974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mitchell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Moreover, the prosecutor was improperly permitted to roam through the prior statement in minute detail and rehash testimony that was not contradictory to Snyder’s trial testimony and which, even more egregiously, bolstered crucial testimony of the People’s witnesses (see People v Jones, 126 AD2d 974, 974 [1987], lvs denied 69 NY2d 1005 [1987], 70 NY2d 649 [1987]; People v De Jesus, 101 AD2d 111, 115 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 1126 [1985]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Park (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
"Where the defendant either requests a mistrial or consents to its declaration, the double jeopardy clauses do not ordinarily bar a second trial" ( People v Haffa , 197 AD3d 964, 965 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1059 [2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Reardon , 126 AD2d 974, 974 [4th Dept 1987]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
John S. Reardon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 23, 1987.
126 A.D.2d 974
1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42091
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s second trial was not barred by the double jeopardy clauses of either the Federal (US Const 5th Amend) or State Constitutions (NY Const, art I, § 6). Where the defendant either requests a mistrial or consents to its declaration, the double jeopardy clauses do not ordinarily bar a second trial (People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383, 388; see, e.g, United States v Scott, 437 US 82, 93). There is no dispute that defendant requested the mistrial during the first trial. We find no support for defendant’s claim that the mistrial motion was necessitated by a deliberate intent on the part of the prosecution to provoke a mistrial (see, Oregon v Kennedy, 456 US 667). We have reviewed the other claims of error raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, third degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.