People v. Robinson
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Sadler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Best (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- People v. Byers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- People v. Ramos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Hargroves (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Wheeler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered January 19, 2000, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request for a mistrial based on the complainant’s comment that she had previously been a victim of a sex crime. The court sustained the defendant’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. Further, when the Supreme Court indicated its willingness to consider some other instruction, the defendant chose to adhere to his demand for a mistrial (see, People v Young, 48 NY2d 995; People v Pought, 154 AD2d 628).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial, since he did not set forth the issue on the record at the time of sentencing (see, People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887). In any event, the defendant’s claim is without merit. The record discloses no vindictiveness on the part of the Supreme Court in
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.