People v. ThompsonPeople v. Thompson
The court denied defendant‘s mistrial motion made after the prosecutor, without having obtained a ruling on the matter during the pretrial Sandoval hearing, asked defendant on cross-examination whether he had owed child support arrears at the time of the alleged sale of narcotics. Even assuming that the prosecutor‘s questions violated the Sandoval ruling, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the mistrial motion. The court provided a sufficient remedy when it promptly struck all questions and answers on the issue, and delivered curative instructions that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]; People v Robles, 28 AD3d 233 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 817 [2006]). In addition, the record supports an inference that the prosecutor did not act in bad faith, but believed that such a ruling was not required.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury‘s determinations concerning cred