mistrial defense in New York

2020To the extent that the defendant's claim that his federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated as there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial is reviewable, notwithstanding the absence of objection ( compare People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 7 , with People v Adonis , 119 AD3d at 701 , and People v Hambrick , 96 AD3d at 973 ), his claim is without merit.

2007(Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458 [1973]; CPL 40.30 [1].) Furthermore, a court may not declare a mistrial solely for its own convenience or that of the jury (People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1 [1979]; Colcloughley v Johnson, 115 AD2d 58 [1st Dept 1986]) and may only do so when there is manifest necessity for the mistrial or ends of justice would otherwise be defeated.

2013Although defense counsel’s disregard of the court’s instructions was blameworthy and understandably angered the court, the cross-examination did not rise to the level of the gross misconduct displayed in cases in which retrial was permitted (see People v Hernandez, 46 AD3d 1388 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 811 [2008]; Matter of Maynard v Wait, 246 AD2d 853 [3d Dept 1998]).

2013Although defense counsel’s disregard of the court’s instructions was blameworthy and understandably angered the court, the cross-examination did not rise to the level of the gross misconduct displayed in cases in which retrial was permitted (see People v Hernandez, 46 AD3d 1388 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 811 [2008]; Matter of Maynard v Wait, 246 AD2d 853 [3d Dept 1998]).

2013Although defense counsel’s disregard of the court’s instructions was blameworthy and understandably angered the court, the cross-examination did not rise to the level of the gross misconduct displayed in cases in which retrial was permitted (see People v Hernandez, 46 AD3d 1388 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 811 [2008]; Matter of Maynard v Wait, 246 AD2d 853 [3d Dept 1998]).

2013Although defense counsel’s disregard of the court’s instructions was blameworthy and understandably angered the court, the cross-examination did not rise to the level of the gross misconduct displayed in cases in which retrial was permitted (see People v Hernandez, 46 AD3d 1388 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 811 [2008]; Matter of Maynard v Wait, 246 AD2d 853 [3d Dept 1998]).

2020While the defendant contends that the Supreme Court's declaration of a mistrial was in violation of CPL 280.10, such contention is not preserved for appellate review as the defendant failed to object to the court's declaration of a mistrial on this, or any other, ground ( see People v Adonis , 119 AD3d 700, 701 ; People v Hambrick , 96 AD3d 972, 973 ).

2020To the extent that the defendant's claim that his federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated as there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial is reviewable, notwithstanding the absence of objection ( compare People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 7 , with People v Adonis , 119 AD3d at 701 , and People v Hambrick , 96 AD3d at 973 ), his claim is without merit.

2020While the defendant contends that the Supreme Court's declaration of a mistrial was in violation of CPL 280.10, such contention is not preserved for appellate review as the defendant failed to object to the court's declaration of a mistrial on this, or any other, ground ( see People v Adonis , 119 AD3d 700, 701 ; People v Hambrick , 96 AD3d 972, 973 ).

2020To the extent that the defendant's claim that his federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated as there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial is reviewable, notwithstanding the absence of objection ( compare People v Michael , 48 NY2d 1, 7 , with People v Adonis , 119 AD3d at 701 , and People v Hambrick , 96 AD3d at 973 ), his claim is without merit.

2007(Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458 [1973]; CPL 40.30 [1].) Furthermore, a court may not declare a mistrial solely for its own convenience or that of the jury (People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1 [1979]; Colcloughley v Johnson, 115 AD2d 58 [1st Dept 1986]) and may only do so when there is manifest necessity for the mistrial or ends of justice would otherwise be defeated.

2007(Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458 [1973]; CPL 40.30 [1].) Furthermore, a court may not declare a mistrial solely for its own convenience or that of the jury (People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1 [1979]; Colcloughley v Johnson, 115 AD2d 58 [1st Dept 1986]) and may only do so when there is manifest necessity for the mistrial or ends of justice would otherwise be defeated.

2003On or about November 5, 2002, as the hearing neared conclusion, the father moved to dismiss the petition as untimely on the authority of Matter of Jonathan B. (supra).

2002There was no colorable theory under which the victim’s sexual history would be relevant in this case (see, People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313-314 ).

1994Moreover, a dismissal would be too drastic a remedy (see, People v Haupt, 71 NY2d 929, 930-931 ; People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516, 521 ).

1994Moreover, a dismissal would be too drastic a remedy (see, People v Haupt, 71 NY2d 929, 930-931 ; People v Kelly, 62 NY2d 516, 521 ).

1987As the defendant did not seek additional instructions or a mistrial the instruction is deemed to be adequate (see, People v Jalah, 107 AD2d 762 ).

1987In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt such comment constituted harmless error (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ).

1972Even over the objection of the defendant, the Trial Judge, for any reason he deems compelling, may declare a mistrial and the defense of double jeopardy is unavailing (Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148 ).

1972Even where the Trial Judge is over assiduous and his action premature, double jeopardy will not result (Gori v. United States, 367 U. S. 364 ).