From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1047 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

Opinion

2018-07122 Ind. 839/17

02-16-2022

The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Jose Rodriguez, appellant.

Thomas J. Butler, Melville, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Libbi L. Vilher of counsel), for respondent.


Thomas J. Butler, Melville, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Libbi L. Vilher of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Felice J. Muraca, J.), rendered May 9, 2018, convicting him of disruption or disturbance of a religious service, funeral, burial, or memorial service and menacing in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial on the ground that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper. "The decision to declare a mistrial rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial" (People v Redmon, 81 A.D.3d 752, 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Ellis, 166 A.D.3d 993, 996-997, affd 34 N.Y.3d 1092). Here, the challenged summation comments were responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v Jackson, 41 A.D.3d 498, 500). To the extent that any comment was improper, the error was not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Johnson, 175 A.D.3d 1130, 1131; People v Giddens, 161 A.D.3d 1191, 1194). Moreover, the court instructed the jurors that they were the finders of fact, that the arguments of counsel were not evidence, and that they were to assess the witnesses's credibility (see People v Brooks, 89 A.D.3d 746).

IANNACCI, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and FORD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1047 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Jose Rodriguez…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 16, 2022

Citations

2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1047 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)