AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MEDINA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting photographs of the crime scene taken in daylight even though the drug transaction occurred at night. The photographs were relevant to illustrate the officer's ability to observe the sale and the power of his binoculars, and the officer's testimony made it plain to the jury that the photographs were taken under different lighting conditions from those existing at the time of the incident ( People v. Mathison, 287 A.D.2d 384, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 706; People v. Rodriguez, 278 A.D.2d 99, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 787; People v. Johnson, 256 A.D.2d 89, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 972).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made after the People's summation. The challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, made in response to defense arguments, and the summation did not shift the burden of proof or deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. CRUZ
(Mar 11, 2004)