Majority
Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial when the testimony of a prosecution witness exceeded the scope of the court’s Ventimiglia ruling. The record does not support defendant’s allegation that the prosecutor purposefully elicited the objectionable testimony; rather, the record shows that the witness volunteered information and that her answers were largely unresponsive. Moreover, the court sustained defense objections to the testimony and gave prompt curative instructions to the jurors that the answers were stricken and should be disregarded. Under those circumstances, reversal is not required (see, People v Mosley, 170 AD2d 990 , 991, lv denied 77 NY2d 964 ; cf., People v Hammock, 182 AD2d 1114 ).
Cases cited
- People v. Mosley 170 AD2d 990 at 991 p. 1021
- People v. Hammock 182 AD2d 1114 p. 1021
- People v. Trammel 84 NY2d 584 at 588 p. 1022
- People v. White 185 AD2d 472 at 473 p. 1022
- People v. West 128 AD2d 570 p. 1022
- People v. Walker 198 AD2d 826 at 827-828 p. 1022