People v. Clarke, 242 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
People v. Clarke, 242 A.D.2d 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Lombardo (nyappdiv, 2021-12-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lombardo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
This line of questioning reflected "the standard trial tactic of giving the panel of prospective jurors a preview of the [potential] weaknesses in [the People's] case and gauging the reaction" ( People v Evans , 242 AD2d 948, 949 [1997] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]; see People [*2]v Horton , 181 AD3d 986, 996 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1045 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lombardo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
This line of questioning reflected "the standard trial tactic of giving the panel of prospective jurors a preview of the [potential] weaknesses in [the People's] case and gauging the reaction" ( People v Evans , 242 AD2d 948, 949 [1997] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]; see People [*2]v Horton , 181 AD3d 986, 996 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1045 [2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Farrington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
With respect to defense counsel's failure to object to certain questions the prosecutor posed to prospective jurors, we conclude that "[t]he prosecutor merely engaged in the standard trial tactic of giving the panel [of prospective jurors] a preview of the weaknesses in [his] case and gauging the reaction' " ( People v Evans , 242 AD2d 948, 949 [4th Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]), and that defense counsel was thus not ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's questions ( see generally Stultz , 2 NY3d at 287 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gottsche
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Indeed, in his statement to the police, defendant stated that he remembered “shooting once at [the victim] as she went out the door.” We therefore conclude that “there is [a] valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial,” i.e., that defendant intended to kill the victim (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see Lucas, 94 AD3d at 1441 ; Evans, 242 AD2d at 949).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gottsche
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Indeed, in his statement to the police, defendant stated that he remembered “shooting once at [the victim] as she went out the door.” We therefore conclude that “there is [a] valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial,” i.e., that defendant intended to kill the victim (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see Lucas, 94 AD3d at 1441 ; Evans, 242 AD2d at 949).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ambers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, certain remarks and questioning by the prosecutor concerning the same evidence during subsequent rounds of jury selection were not improper (see People v Evans, 242 AD2d 948, 949 [1997]; People v Porter, 226 AD2d 275, 276-277 [1996]; see also People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ambers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, certain remarks and questioning by the prosecutor concerning the same evidence during subsequent rounds of jury selection were not improper (see People v Evans, 242 AD2d 948, 949 [1997]; People v Porter, 226 AD2d 275, 276-277 [1996]; see also People v Rivera, 27 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gaston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Absent bad faith or undue prejudice, reversal is not required because the prosecutor fails to prove every statement or representation made during an opening statement” (People v Evans, 242 AD2d 948, 949 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gaston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Absent bad faith or undue prejudice, reversal is not required because the prosecutor fails to prove every statement or representation made during an opening statement” (People v Evans, 242 AD2d 948, 949 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jenkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
We conclude that "[t]he prosecutor merely engaged in the standard trial tactic of giving the panel [of prospective jurors] a preview of the weaknesses in [his] case and gauging the reaction . . . and that defense counsel was thus not ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's questions" ( People v Farrington , 171 AD3d 1538 , 1540-1541 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 930 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Evans , 242 AD2d 948, 949 [4th Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carlton L. Clarke
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 30, 1997.
242 A.D.2d 948
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10553
Published

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 on the ground that the People breached their obligations to disclose Brady material concerning a prosecution witness (see, People v Baxley, 84 NY2d 208, 213, rearg dismissed 86 NY2d 886) and to make available the testimony of two other prosecution witnesses before the Grand Jury in another proceeding against defendant (see, CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Eldridge, 222 AD2d 1109). County Court properly denied that motion. The record supports the court’s determination that, although a Brady violation occurred, there is no reasonable possibility that the violation contributed to the verdict (see, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77; People v Pressley [appeal No. 2], 234 AD2d 954, lv granted 89 NY2d 1039). We also agree with the court’s conclusion that the statements of the two witnesses before the Grand Jury were “duplicative equivalents of statements previously turned over to the defense” (People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 454).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence without conducting a hearing (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 143 AD2d 162, 163) and that the evidence of intent is insufficient to support the murder conviction (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, McCarthy, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.