Filed Date: 4/12/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant correctly contends that the prosecutor’s questions regarding whether he “ma[de] an outcry” or filed a police report after his arrest were improper and violated his right to remain silent (see People v Haines, 139 AD2d 591 [1988]; People v Livingston, 128 AD2d 645 [1987]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282 [1983]). While the trial court properly sustained defense counsel’s objections before the questions were answered, it erred in denying a subsequent request for curative instructions. As the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, this error was not harmless, and a new trial is warranted (cf. People v Henry, 306 AD2d 539 [2003]).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.