Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE SWAN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by misconduct during the prosecutor's opening statement, direct examination of the victim, and summation (see CPL 470.05[2]; see People v. Gates, 6 AD3d 1062, 1063, lv denied 3 NY3d 659). In any event, we conclude that none of the alleged misconduct by the prosecutor was so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Figgins, 72 AD3d 1599, 1600, lv denied 15 NY3d 893).
We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. “Inasmuch as defendant was not denied a fair trial by any alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, defense counsel's failure to object to those [instances] does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v. Gaston, 100 AD3d 1463, 1465). Defendant failed “to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's” alleged ineffectiveness in failing to make particular arguments or take particular actions (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709), including the failure to challenge a prospective juror (see People v. Stepney, 93 AD3d 1297, 1298, lv denied 19 NY3d 968).
Although a prosecution witness testified in violation of County Court's ruling excluding a portion of defendant's statement at the crime scene, defendant withdrew his mistrial motion based on that testimony and made no further objection when the court issued curative instructions. “Under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant's satisfaction” (People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944; see People v. Henry, 9 AD3d 914, 915, lv denied 3 NY3d 675). The court thereafter properly denied defendant's pro se motion for a mistrial, which was based upon the same testimony, made at the close of the People's case (see People v. Ross, 221 A.D.2d 383, 384, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 925).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 12–00384
Decided: March 27, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)