Opinion
September 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.).
Defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon a violation of the trial court's Sandoval ruling was properly denied. Defendant correctly asserts that the prosecutor's question about whether he had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge was a direct violation of the Sandoval ruling. However, the granting of a mistrial was not required, since defendant was not unduly prejudiced: he never answered the question, which was stricken, and the court promptly instructed the jury that a question never constitutes evidence ( see, People v Brown, 195 A.D.2d 419, 420, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 804). Moreover, the prior assault conviction mentioned by the prosecutor was not similar to the charge for which defendant was on trial.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find they do not warrant corrective action.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.