Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 3, 2012

99 A.D.3d 737; 951 N.Y.2d 581

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Mairs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Valenko (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Frazier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Dorcinvil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Texidor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Barnett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Lynch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Bodie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)

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

*738Photographic evidence “should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant” (People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]; see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833 [1990]; People v Sampson, 67 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2009]). When inflammatory photographs are relevant to a material issue at trial, the court has broad discretion to determine whether the probative value of the photographs outweighs any prejudice to the defendant (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d at 833; People v Upshaw, 242 AD2d 548, 549 [1997]; People v Harrison, 207 AD2d 359 [1994]). The photographs at issue here were relevant to material issues in the case, and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting them into evidence. Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the photographs, as redacted by the court, were not so inflammatory as to have deprived him of a fair trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.