People v. Anderson, 52 N.Y.2d 641 (1981)
When a trial court sustains an objection to improper testimony and provides prompt curative instructions, a motion for a mistrial is properly denied unless the prejudice was not alleviated and the defendant requested further instructions that were not given.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed an order denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. The court held that any prejudice resulting from a brief mention of uncharged criminal activity was cured by the trial court’s prompt curative instructions. The Court further reasoned that the defendant waived any objection to the adequacy of the curative instructions by failing to request additional or more complete instructions. The Court also found the police encounter with the defendant was lawful, based on reasonable suspicion arising from an anonymous informant’s tip and the officer’s own observations.
Facts
During the defendant’s trial, there was a brief mention of uncharged criminal activity. The defendant objected to the testimony. The trial court sustained the objection and provided curative instructions to the jury.
Procedural History
The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied by the trial court. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial after a brief mention of uncharged criminal activity, given the court provided curative instructions.
2. Whether the police encounter with the defendant prior to arrest was lawful.
Holding
1. No, because the trial court’s prompt curative instructions alleviated any potential prejudice to the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant did not request further instructions.
2. Yes, because the information from an anonymous informant and the officer’s observations provided reasonable suspicion for the initial encounter. The intrusion was minimal and related to the circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court’s curative instructions were sufficient to address any prejudice arising from the mention of uncharged criminal activity. The court emphasized that if the defendant believed the instructions were inadequate, it was his responsibility to request further instructions. Failure to do so waived the right to challenge the adequacy of the instructions on appeal. The court stated, “Any prejudice to the defendant which might have arisen due to the brief mention of uncharged criminal activity which was made at defendant’s trial was alleviated when the court sustained defendant’s objections and took prompt curative action.”
Regarding the police conduct, the court found that the encounter was justified by reasonable suspicion based on information from an anonymous informant and the officer’s observations. Citing People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 267, the court noted that the initial encounter was lawful due to this reasonable suspicion. The court also found the intrusion was minimal and reasonably related to the circumstances that allowed for its initiation. The court cited People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 222 and People v. Cantor, 36 N.Y.2d 106, 111 to support this finding.